November 14, 2012
Is Denzel’s Upside-Down Flying Trick Plausible?
Good pilot, bad day. (Photo: Paramount)
The movie trailer intrigued me. A plane in distress is put down in an open field by a great pilot who uses a very unusual maneuver to save the day: He rolls the plane inverted to arrest an uncontrolled dive, saving 96 of the 102 “souls on board.” Denzel Washington plays the Captain, “Whip” Whitaker, in Flight and that’s enough reason for me to see the movie (big Denzel fan). So I headed off for a Saturday matinee, fully expecting that this movie, like almost every aviation movie I’ve ever seen, would take some liberties with the technical aspects of the flying scenes. I wasn’t disappointed.
The plane is a JR-88, a type that exists only in the mind of a screenwriter. It looks suspiciously like an MD-88, but I suppose when you’re making a movie about an aviation disaster you don’t want the liability of naming an actual type of plane. It’s a rainy morning in Orlando, and Captain Whitaker is completing his pre-flight walkaround inspection of the plane. That’s when the movie loses all credibility for me. Very few captains perform any walkaround, and virtually no captain will do one in the rain.
The cockpit is authentic, and it’s definitely an MD-80 variant. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) chatter is pretty realistic, if not perfect, and the crew coordination on takeoff and climb is also not bad. But then they encounter some rough weather, and things start to go Hollywood. Whip decides to penetrate this weather in a very unconventional way. For some reason he decides to stay low and push the speed up until the plane is hitting the max allowable speed, indicated on the airspeed indicator by a “barber pole.” The First Officer (FO) brings the excessive speed to his attention, but Whip isn’t deterred, and applies even more power.
In the real world, the pilots would have been thinking much farther ahead, trying to avoid the weather displayed on their weather radar. After encountering rough air, one of the first things we do is reduce speed to soften the bumps. (Much like riding on a bumpy road in your car, the effect of the bumps is amplified if you go faster.) At this low altitude, we would use a speed of 290 knots to get a better ride. Flying that close to the “barber pole” in that kind of turbulence not only makes for a very uncomfortable ride, but also exposes the plane to potential structural damage.
After successfully penetrating the weather and finding smooth air, Whip’s plane is cruising at 30,000 feet when the plane begins an uncontrollable dive. You can hear the audio warning “SINK RATE, SINK RATE,” which is a warning that would only occur if the plane is down low and descending too fast. Up at altitude we can, and do, descend at rates that would be unacceptable when in the approach phase of flight. We sometimes descend at rates in excess of 4,000 feet per minute if necessary for ATC, or to make a crossing restriction. We don’t want to get meaningless warnings about this, so the system is programmed to inhibit these alerts when we’re more than 2,500 feet above the ground.
A number of things happen at this point in the movie that a good technical adviser could have caught. For one, Whip directs the FO to dump fuel. I think I heard him say that they needed to reduce the weight of the plane, but this wouldn’t really be a consideration in this situation. I guess one conceivable reason you might want to dump fuel is to minimize the amount on board to feed a post-crash fire, but the MD-88 doesn’t even have fuel dump capability (though perhaps the JR-88 does).
Whip then tells ATC that they’ve lost hydraulics to the elevator. Maybe in the make-believe JR-88, but the MD-88 doesn’t have hydraulically powered flight controls. It’s all cables and pushrods moving control tabs on the elevator, rudder, and ailerons. Next, he directs the FO to put the flaps down. I’m not sure what this would accomplish, other than to cause structural damage to the flaps and maybe even rip them off the plane. The flaps have maximum speeds associated with each setting and we’re very careful not to exceed these limitations.
As if things weren’t bad enough, they now have a fire in the left engine—a pretty random occurrence that doesn’t seem related in any way to the mechanical difficulty they’re having with the plane’s elevator. They’re just having a really bad day. Whip directs the FO to “put out the fire,” and he dutifully pulls the fire handle for the left engine. This action shoots halon into the burning engine to put out the fire, but that’s not all it does. It also isolates the engine, closing the fuel valve, hydraulic valve, and pneumatic valve associated with that engine. In other words, it shuts down the engine. (All airliners work this way, and this function of the fire handle is part of the certification requirements for transport category airplanes.) But in the movie, the engine keeps running.
Minutes later they have a fire in the right engine! Wow, this is a really, really bad day. The chances of two independent engine fires right on the heels of a catastrophic flight control failure are just astronomical. So rare, in fact, that we don’t ever train for these kind of compound failures. Whip directs the FO to put out this fire, and he pulls the fire handle for the right engine. If you did this in the real world, things would get very quiet as you would now become a glider, with no engines running. If this really happened, we’d let that second engine burn because we’d need the power from it to continue flying.
And now we get to the fantastic display of airmanship by Whip. He rolls the plane inverted while directing the FO to retract the flaps and directing one of the flight attendants to pull a mysterious handle on the center console “on the count of three.” I’m not sure what that handle did. If he explained it, I missed it. But I’m very familiar with the MD-88 cockpit, and I don’t remember any such handle. He also directs her to push the throttles forward during this maneuver. After flying inverted for a a brief time, he rolls back to normal flight attitude just in time to crash land in an open field.
Could this maneuver actually work? It’s an imaginative premise. They were in a situation where the elevator was locked in a position forcing a nose-down pitch attitude, which caused a rapid dive. By going inverted, the nose will be pointed skyward, but there would still be no control of the pitch. With enough power, the plane would now climb skyward under negative G’s, but the pitch attitude would still be uncontrollable. In such a desperate situation I guess it would be worth a try. As I watched the movie, I found myself willing to suspend disbelief and just go along with Whip’s fantastic flying ability. But even superb flying can’t overcome unresponsive controls.
In the aftermath of the accident, the NTSB determines the cause of the dive to be a mechanical defect in a jackscrew that moves the elevator trim. This is taken from a real-life accident which occurred in January 2000, when Alaska Air Flight 261, an MD-83, suffered just such a failure of the jackscrew, causing a loss of pitch control. At one point, that crew actually attempted to arrest the dive by going inverted, but the plane continued to descend at a rate in excess of 13,000 feet per minute and crashed into the Pacific Ocean.
Watch the movie trailer, below:
93 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It’s a good job it was an American plane and not an Airbus, whose computers would have stopped the pilot rolling it inverted. Clearly unsafe, those Airbuses.
Comment by kit — November 15, 2012 @ 12:10 am
You’re analysis of the movie was very good and pretty much the way I saw it except for one thing. I’m a captain on the 737/700-800 series. The two man crew swap flying duties every other leg. Therefore, with 9000 left seat hours, I’ve done hundreds of walkarounds in all types of weather. The Boeing flight manual expressly calls for a Pilot Flying and a Pilot Monitoring. The PMs required duty is to walkaround. Maybe some airlines don’t have the Captain go outside but it’s plausable. Otherwise, a good recap. We won’t get into random drug testing which this film convieniently ignores.
Comment by Dave B — November 15, 2012 @ 12:12 am
I endorse all you say about the errors relevant to the MD-88. However I found this a great movie and we shouldn’t forget that Denzel Washington was the pilot!
Comment by Brian Dunn — November 15, 2012 @ 1:53 am
Captain Dave B: You’re right, I was a little glib in my generalization about Captains not doing walk arounds. But at least at my airline, it’s the exception (especially in bad weather). If you’ve done hundreds of them, you’re my kind of Captain!
Brian: I’m a huge Denzel fan too and I thought it was a very entertaining movie.
Comment by Steve Satre — November 15, 2012 @ 5:18 am
At least now you know how physics majors feel when we watch movies set in space…
Comment by JohnD — November 15, 2012 @ 1:57 pm
its a movie ¡¡ come on just enjoy it¡¡
Comment by pablo — November 15, 2012 @ 4:59 pm
Hollywood could learn a lot from true life!! I.E., United 232, (Sioux City), US Air 1549, (Hudson River), and others. How hard is it to make even simple things (ATC chatter, instrumentation, physics), more realistic?
Comment by Sam — November 15, 2012 @ 7:18 pm
Oh, and that mysterious handle? It was probably red, as in the movie “Airplane”!
“Pull the red handle!”
Comment by Sam — November 15, 2012 @ 7:30 pm
Fairly good recap of the action scene from the movie. Since we can all pretty much agree its an MD-88 series knockoff, especially since they showed the broken jackscrew as the cause of the issue (ala Alaska 261), I was sort of pondering the horizontal stabilizer trim. Effectively, the reason the plane crashed was loss of elevator control, which is electrically driven on the MD-88. The last few seconds of the flight before it crashed, there’s a shot showing Denzel manually spinning a (Boeing style) trim wheel on the side of the console. Obviously this wouldn’t be doing anything if there was a stabilizer control failure.
Comment by Nick — November 18, 2012 @ 3:17 am
Is this better or worse, from a plausibility standpoint, than landing a 747 in the ocean and having it survive intact under water for several hours?
Comment by Katarina — November 18, 2012 @ 6:04 am
Nick: I completely missed the trim wheel (which doesn’t exist in the MD-88). Thanks for pointing it out. And, of course, you’re right that it wouldn’t have any effect.
Katarina: There’s no comparison. I’ll take the inverted maneuver any day over the premise of a 747 under water.
I think the movie you’re talking about is Airport ’77. In it a 747 survived a ditching and descent to the ocean floor. First of all, the 747 (or any plane) is not watertight and if it was it wouldn’t sink; it would become a boat. In the movie, the plane presumably stays intact because it’s pressurized. But pressurization is provided by engine bleed air. No running engines means no pressurization. (For more trivia/goofs about that movie, see the imdb.com listing.)
Comment by Steve Satre — November 19, 2012 @ 1:26 pm
About the two engine fires…I thought that the engine fires came after the plane was inverted. A low oil pressure &/or hi oil temp alarm came in and then the engine fire alarms which made me think that the engine fires would be expected since the oil lubrication system is not designed for inverted (negative G) flight.
About the center console “pull handle”…I thought he said something about it being some sort of transfer to mechanical control for the horizontal stabilizer or elevators. Bottom line – Hollywood really seems to stretch the truth whenever they want just to make the movie seem interesting. To me it often does just the opposite. Thanks for bringing us back to reality!
Comment by Doug Craven — November 20, 2012 @ 2:08 am
That’s an interesting observation Doug. I can’t recall if the engine fires occurred while inverted, but low oil pressure shouldn’t cause a fire, it should just result in an engine failure.
Comment by Steve Satre — November 20, 2012 @ 2:33 am
Good critique but why won’t any captain do a walk around?
Preflight is usually done by first officer but captain can if he wishes. Must do in rain and any weather.
Frank
Comment by Frank Mandriota — November 21, 2012 @ 1:19 am
Flew for the government for a few years and had almost everything imagineable go thru a turbine without causing a fire, mind you I’ve had a few shutdown and even disasemble but no fires. maybe a good movie for non flyers but really the pits for those who’ve been there.
Comment by Dane Butts — November 21, 2012 @ 1:30 am
Worst aviation sequence from just about every standpoint. Crew interaction NOT at all realistic. And the whole t-handle the engines for a fire and then push the throttles up for power later? Wretched aviation consultant, or the director failed to take his input. Epic fail of a movie for many other reasons. I had hopes that at least Denzel Washington’s fine performance could save the movie.. It did not.
Comment by Deb — November 21, 2012 @ 2:07 am
A few months ago, there was a big fund raising gala in Seattle attended by a large number of Apollo and Shuttle Astronauts, Flight Controllers, and other space dignitaries (Buzz Aldrin, Gene Kranz, and Gene Cernan, to drop a few names – yes it was as cool as it sounds). Anyway, Neil Armstrong’s sons attended and gave a talk (apparently Neil was going to attend prior to his untimely passing so his sons came instead). One son talked about how it was impossible to watch any movie or TV show about space or airplanes with their dad – he would constantly point out all the errors. Neil also apparently pointed out that David Bowie had it all wrong – they would never say “Ground Control to Major Tom”, they would have said “Major Tom, this is Ground Control” – in space you always indentify who you’re talking to first…
Tim
Comment by Tim Doll — November 21, 2012 @ 2:09 am
It’s a movie. It’s there to entertain Perhaps there are concerns about the possibilities of the flying maneuvers being emulated by real pilots because of Denzel’s “pilot role model;” should that be the case, then there are a lot of people with far too much time to worry.
Comment by Jim — November 21, 2012 @ 2:30 am
Great movie but appears that if you are high on coke and drunk as a skunk, you can do things that other pilots just cannot do!
Comment by Dave Dicker — November 21, 2012 @ 2:59 am
About that “mysterious handle”, my take is that there were actually two of them, one on the FO’s side of the center console, the other on the captain’s. Doug is correct that it was supposed to allow for mechanical control of the control surfaces after a hydraulic failure. Denzel first ordered the FO to pull his; it didn’t work. Moments later he gets the FA to pull the one on his side, since he apparently needed both hands for the control column. I think it must have worked.
In spite of all the aeronautical imagination stretchers, it was–I thought–a very good movie.
Comment by Bill M. — November 21, 2012 @ 3:44 am
I too am an avid aerospace aircraft junky, My wife,son and I went to the local theater to see this movie. We enjoy watching the acting of Demzel in any movie. As I watch the scene open with turbulence creating a sense of uneasiness. I could only think why are you not changing course to avoid the storm. I have been in many flights with just about the same turbulence in-fact on this flight the turbulence was so unreal. I did manage to catch the flight attended as she passed me almost airborne in the cabin. I stuck out my arm, did manage to catch her, she was very appreciative for stopping her in-almost mid air in cabin flight.
Anyway The movie brought back that flight, I started having those feelings again, but unlike the movie we all made it home.
This is a movie that bring the attention of the functioning alcoholics. There many out there who need help but think it is not effecting them at all. We need to make these people realize they have a problem and need help. If Demzels character was not an (FA), no one would have not survived the crash, even if the inverted flight is hard to imagine, but possible.
Thanks.
Comment by Sergio Maraschin — November 21, 2012 @ 4:24 am
As anyone familiar with the operation of a large jet powered aircraft knows, the center red handle in the cockpit is the phizter valve,which is pulled, as a last ditch effort, in an other wise un-recoverable flight attitude.
Comment by B. R. neeley — November 21, 2012 @ 4:39 am
It’s quite true the captain performed many unconventional actions, because he was drunk! As for the mysterious red handle, the purpose had nothing to do with flight controls. It was literary license to get the stewardess into the cockpit and make a pronouncement for the “black box” recorder; used later in the film against the captain.
Comment by Jay Campbell — November 21, 2012 @ 4:39 am
I have wanted to fix problem like this for years does anybody out there know whos in charge of making airplanes do dumb thing in movies as well as television programs. I would like to get a job in the film industry where I could keep airplanes from doing it wrong.
Comment by Dennison Love — November 21, 2012 @ 4:52 am
Tim, that’s true here on Earth too. (But I still like the David Bowie song)
Comment by Steve Satre — November 21, 2012 @ 5:39 am
I used to be a groundsman at a small regional airport in the Kimberley region of Western Australia in the mid 90′s, and we always used to see the Captains conducting a walk around, no matter how short a turnaround was. F28′s and BAE146′s.
Comment by Ryan James O'Connell — November 21, 2012 @ 1:32 pm
It’s TV, everything on TV is made for TV, mostly zero reality, doesn’t matter what type show.
Comment by WheelyBoy — November 21, 2012 @ 1:51 pm
As a career pilot (ATP,LRJet,737) I have often thought if hollywood makes as many mistakes (i.e.stretches the “envelope”) with actual surgical procedures or legal proceedings it must have doctors and lawyers performing the “ROFLMAO” manuever!
Comment by Sam — November 21, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
I’m not a pilot, so I did wonder if inverted
flight was feasible with this aircraft. I know
some airplanes can, we’ve all seen this at air
shows, but I suspect that with some aircraft it is
simply impossible.
We all have to suspend our disbelief to enjoy
movies and TV, for some shows more than others. It
also depends on how much you know; not being a
pilot, the only one of these errors I caught was
the inverted flight (Can that plane do that, and
would it really work?).
My mother was a registered nurse; I remember more
than one hospital scene that made her shake her
head and I’d have to ask why.
Imagine lawyers watching court room dramas, police
officers watching cop shows, the list is nearly
endless.
Me, I work in IT and I want one of those computers
you see on TV – you know the one, it responds
instantly to a search of any and all databases
with the one exact thing you were looking for, and
nothing else.
I’ll have to work on the password, though; it
seems anyone can guess the password in three or
four tries based on an old newspaper article about
the owner.
Comment by Jim Knowles — November 21, 2012 @ 6:03 pm
Sounds like a bad day in the simulator to me.
Comment by Snowball — November 22, 2012 @ 12:40 am
Tex Johnston did a controlled barrel roll with -80, the prototype to the Boeing 707 over Lake Washington. He did it twice while Bill Allen, President of Boeing was watching from the ground. It’s a great story to read from both sides. Also, it was reported that a USAF EC-135 had a barrell roll from about 30,000 feet over Indiana and pulled out at a much lower altitude.
Comment by Don — November 22, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
Yes, Tex did do that barrel roll in the Dash 80 (which you can see in the National Air and Space Museum, Udvar Hazy Center, just south of Dulles airport). But it should be noted that this is a +1G maneuver, whereas sustained inverted flight is a -1G maneuver.
For planes which have oil systems built for normal flight, this negative G can result in low oil pressure and ultimately engine failure. The aerobatic planes you see at airshows doing fly-bys upside down are equipped with fuel and oil systems which operate during negative G conditions.
Comment by Steve Satre — November 22, 2012 @ 3:32 pm
I believe that handle that the flight attendant pulls was said to be a manual control handle.
Comment by Eric — November 22, 2012 @ 6:07 pm
Regarding inverted flight – I work Propulsion Systems at Boeing Commercial Aircraft. Steve S is correct about the Dash 80 barrel roll – it was not a negative G maneuver. However there is an FAA requirement to demonstrate a short period of negative G operation in order to certify a new commercial aircraft (10 seconds if memory serves). Although the lube and fuel systems do not operate properly, there is enough ‘fuel in the lines’ and residual oil in the bearings to prevent any adverse consequence during a short period of negative G flight (I understand the flight test tends to be interesting – no matter how many times they go through the airplane, things get missed that go flying around the cabin during the negative G).
Extended negative G flight would uncover the fuel tank inlets, eventually starving the engines of fuel but that could take several minutes, depending on the engines power settings and the aircraft conguration. Similarly, while loss of lubrication would soon start damaging engine bearings it would likely be several minutes before the bearings actually failed.
I haven’t seen the movie (I’ll probably wait until it comes out on DVD) so I don’t know how long it’s inverted, but that part of the movie is at least plausable.
Comment by Tim Doll — November 22, 2012 @ 8:06 pm
Tim, thanks for the information regarding inverted flight in an airliner. In the movie they were inverted for several minutes, but not an excessively long time. What I don’t remember from the movie is whether or not Whip and the FO had their shoulder harnesses on during this maneuver. That would be a must, otherwise you’d only have the lap belt keeping you at the controls.
I took aerobatic training years ago at Frederick, Maryland, flying a CAP-10 which was equipped with inverted fuel and oil systems for sustained negative G flight. No matter how tightly strapped in you are, there’s always a little give there when you roll it upside down and fly inverted. It’s not a comfortable feeling hanging in the straps.
If anyone remembers (or someone else goes to see the movie after reading this), I’d love to know if they put their shoulder harnesses back on before going inverted.
Comment by Steve Satre — November 23, 2012 @ 3:24 am
What I found less bothersome than flying inverted was the fact that after Whip again rotated the plane–just before landing–the plane appeared to have regained somewhat normal pitch control, else it would have immediately pitched down. How did that happen? I’m an aerospace engineer, also annoyed by technical inaccuracies, but tend to suspend criticism in movies like this where the acting (and background songs) are good.
Comment by John N. — November 23, 2012 @ 6:22 pm
Well Steve Satre,
After reading your review of the Movie Flight I think YOU ARE MY HERO.
I really hope you don’t write a same type of review of Batmen Movies and such….oh boy that review could grow a ling list, huh? Or matter of fact the TV series “Knight Rider”….hmmm because I really think with my over 40 years old brain that the Turbo Boost button works and that Model really talks…..duh…
I am still trying to decide that if this review was about a movie or about you to flashing how well you know aviation.
Comment by Skynet — November 24, 2012 @ 4:56 am
John N.,
I remember being bothered by the same thing, but forgot to mention anything about it in my blog.
———-
Skynet,
You said: “I am still trying to decide that if this review was about a movie or about you to flashing how well you know aviation.”
To be honest, I wrote this particular blog after one of the editors at Air & Space asked me if I thought the inverted maneuver in the movie was plausible and suggested that this might make an interesting subject. At the time, I hadn’t seen the movie yet and I’m not sure when I would have done so. But I kind of took the suggestion as a homework assignment and went to see the movie with a friend. I jotted some brief notes as I watched (because I know it would all blur if I relied on my memory).
I hope I don’t come off as a know-it-all here. I think any other airline pilot would notice the things I mentioned, just as other professionals must notice errors when their own job is portrayed by Hollywood. (One example that comes to mind is the movie “Pushing Tin” about Air Traffic Control. Real controllers must cringe at some of those scenes.)
Comment by Steve Satre — November 25, 2012 @ 7:09 pm
Wow! What a dissapointment.I thought it was going to be more about flying and things that go with being a pilot.Was I dissapointed and I have liked Denzel in other movies but this was a fairy tale.I worked for Southern/Republic/Northwest and now Delta on the ramp for 33 years and have flown in the jumpseat 5 times of the DC-9-30-50-80 and B-757.My dad was a pilot in the Air Force for 35 years and flew everything there was from B-17,B-29,fighters and helicopters.When he saw the movie he said the same thing that one other said about multiple failures that could only be conjoured up in Hollywood.Massive failure of the Hollywood director to delete reality to make a buck.Before I had to stop my flying(epilepsy onset) I had 2200 hours of flying time. In all my instruction never been so disgusted by people that can not employ pilots that could make real life situations and still hold your attention.$7.50 down the drain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Steve Maddox — November 26, 2012 @ 6:42 pm
Ref comment #26. We used to say that BAE (BAE-146) meant
“Bring Another Engine” They didn’t last very long.
Comment by Bruce Pike — November 27, 2012 @ 2:06 am
As a pilot I also had to bite my tongue about some stuff – the only thing that really bothered me was like you said, the fact that engines kept running after they pulled the fire handles. I chose to believe that they had engine problems as a result of going inverted – that’s how I wrote that one off
Comment by Liz — November 27, 2012 @ 10:51 pm
Your awareness of the unrealistic/overly creative aspects of the aircraft, flight characteristics, etc, are exactly how I feel when watching movies that try to do some “high tech” software/computer stuff. Piloting is your area of expertise and software development is mine. If I’m watching a movie and they say they’re going to “stream the upload synchronization diskette transfer to the Internet sector.” It’s like they searched google and misunderstood the detailed article that was presented to them.
For the record, it *is* possible to fly inverted. I’ve taken my supercub upside down quite a few times. Although, it is a much smaller scale and I’m safely on the ground with the 2.4Ghz transmitter
Comment by Javadevjpc — November 29, 2012 @ 4:52 am
[...] the whole inverted flight sequence even possible? I had to look it up and I recommending reading this article where a commercial pilot voices his [...]
Pingback by Couch Potato Talk - $3 Movie Review: Flight - Couch Potato Talk — November 30, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
The article didnt address what I thought to be the most basic premise question, which is whether an MD-88 or its Hollywood equivalent would be able to pull more than 2-3Gs inverted with a full passenger load without folding the wings.
Comment by Mark — December 1, 2012 @ 8:29 pm
Let me get this straight:
“Very few captains perform any walkaround, and virtually no captain will do one in the rain.”
So you’re telling me that the PIC of an aircraft that’s carrying over 100 trusting souls, will not generally do a walk-around?
Steve, when I learned to fly, I was taught that the PIC is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.
Well, burst my bubble! I thought these people were professionals.
I’d appreciate it if someone would tell me the names of the airlines who employ these pilots, so I’ll know to avoid them in the future.
Comment by John Leonard — December 4, 2012 @ 2:04 pm
John: if you want to avoid airlines with Captains who don’t do walk arounds, plan on driving a lot.
As I mentioned in my response to Dave B’s comment, I was being a little too general when I said that Captains never do a walk around. I’ve flown with some who don’t, but I’ve also flown with many who will do the walk around when it’s my leg. But of those, many will still draw the line at doing the walk around in bad weather. The prerogative of command, I suppose.
But I have to disagree with you on your point, i.e. that not doing a walk around is a sign of not being professional. It’s simply the hierarchy of command. The Captain knows he has a well trained first officer, fully capable of making the external inspection required for all flights.
Comment by Steve Satre — December 4, 2012 @ 2:34 pm
It sounds like the idea from the inverted roll comes from Neil Williams. He was a test pilot who flew aerobatics in the UK. His book Aerobatics, outlines this event in ZLin Akrobat.
Here is a link to his report:
http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/repeats/zlin_wing_failure.htm
What do you think?
Comment by BohdanP — December 5, 2012 @ 10:16 pm
Thank you for posting the technical analysis – very interesting and informative. I agree with all your observations but still have (at least) one question or problem with the inverted flight. As the aircraft is rolling back to normal the speed seems to have decreased alot and I am not sure the aircraft would have been able to complete that maneuver at such low speed. The low speed is demonstrated as the aircraft basically stalls onto the field.
This may just be me but I don’t think it takes anything away from the movie that we (or anyone) tries to analyse whether the flight maneuvers are realistic or plausible. We are all fans of flying and just think it is interesting to do a little desktop flying. Oh, and I love the movie. I will probably rent the DVD just to desktop fly the sequence again.
Comment by KimP — December 10, 2012 @ 11:54 am
If I remember correctly years ago there was a TWA Boeing 727 at crusing altitude when the autopilot could not keep course. When the pilot relieved the autopilot the plane did a snap roll(2 rotations)followed by a nose dive possibly breaking the sound barrior. The pilot then lowered the landing gear to slow the plane. The doors on the gear ripped off but they landed O.K. The control surfaces on one wing were basically shredded and the autopilot just could not keep up.
Comment by Ken Carlton(use Mr. Ken) — December 12, 2012 @ 12:42 am
Mr. Ken:
You’re referring to TWA Flight 841. The incident occurred in April of 1979 and the basic facts are just as you related them. The plane lost 34,000 feet in just over a minute. I don’t know if it broke the sound barrier, but it definitely exceeded the Mach limit for the plane. The NTSB’s findings are pretty interesting. (Google “TWA 841″ to read about it.)
Comment by Steve Satre — December 12, 2012 @ 2:29 am
Once you have it behind your mind that the film was made with the intention to entertain and not as a flight training package, you will easily forgive the technical inaccuracies. Even the seemingly knowledgeable comments from supposed pilots here attract some queries.
Comment by Dee — January 2, 2013 @ 6:02 pm
I believe the engines caught fire after the plane was inverted and they did shutdown when the fires were put out. When the plane flipped back over, they were gliding.
The most glaring problem to me was that the elevator was stuck due to a mechanical problem (jack screw), forcing the nose of the plane down. Inverting bought some time to find a solution. They pull the magic handle to engage manual control, bypassing the hydraulics. When they flip back over, they have complete control over the plane, but have no power and are able to glide to a reasonable crash landing. Did the magic handle also fix the elevator?
Comment by idsanity — January 9, 2013 @ 10:54 pm
Hey Steve Satre: You lost me as being a knowledgable writer right here…
re: “After encountering rough air, one of the first things we do is reduce speed to soften the bumps. (Much like riding on a bumpy road in your car, the effect of the bumps is amplified if you go faster.) At this low altitude, we would use a speed of 290 knots to get a better ride. ”
Please read:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/make-a-bumpy-drive-smoother-by-driving-faster.htm
Comment by Jeffrey Brooks — January 10, 2013 @ 3:41 am
One thing is off on your review of the movie. The engines did not fail until after the plane was inverted which is why I believe the engines started to fail as they were not meant to be flown upside down.
Comment by Jimmy — January 10, 2013 @ 9:29 pm
Not a pilot, but an avid fan of the profession. My impression was that the earlier problem with wx that caused Whip to push the aircraft to and past its speed limits had damaged the engines which ultimately caused the fire later. Even as a layperson, I didn’t buy the inverted flight of a passenger airliner like this one, but I suspend belief when I watch movies all the time — it’s the only way to enjoy them. I’m a screenwriter by trade and even WE aren’t always depicted accurately in film!!
Comment by LKB — January 10, 2013 @ 10:50 pm
idsanity: You said “I believe the engines caught fire after the plane was inverted and they did shutdown when the fires were put out.” Wrong. The Captain called for power again after the fire handles were pulled. They didn’t shut down.
Jeffrey Brooks: Myth Busters notwithstanding, I find it more comfortable to go over a rough road slowly rather than fast, and the procedure we follow in the plane is to slow down in rough air.
Jimmy: the engines didn’t just fail, they caught fire and that’s what I was commenting on. Not sure that would happen.
LKB: Good point and I certainly appreciate the necessity for suspension of disbelief.
Comment by Steve Satre — January 11, 2013 @ 3:26 am
For any questioning the plausibility of possibilty of the maneuvers, read about FedEx flight 705.
Comment by Phillip S. — January 11, 2013 @ 4:50 am
[...] As one commenter on airspacemag.com put it, “Hollywood could learn a lot from true life, i.e., United 232.” That’s because when it comes to a real life loss of airliner flight control, situations don’t get much worse than Flight 232. [...]
Pingback by Can airliners really fly upside down? | Rene Kubitza News — January 11, 2013 @ 6:33 am
Fascinating!!!
Comment by Tommy Lampini — January 16, 2013 @ 9:51 pm
Perhaps I am getting this wrong, but I don’t think the movie was about flying or crashing an airliner and alignment to reality of aerodynamics. It’s a movie about addiction, in this case addiction to alcohol. How many alcoholics go about their ‘normal’ daily lives under the influence and convince themselves and everyone around them that they are operating at an optimum level? I just hope there is at least one alcoholic who watches this movie and makes a positive step to seek help and rehabilitation from the downward spiral of their addiction.
Comment by Phil Shaw — January 27, 2013 @ 12:39 pm
The best non-flying class my military unit ever had was when one of our Reservist pilots brought the UAL Cockpit Communications class into our ready room on a safety stand-down day. The young co-pilot (in this movie) sensing his captain to be drunk should NEVER have pushed back in the first place. It takes two sober pilots to crew any aircraft carrying passengers with both aviators sharing tasks on the flight deck. A co-pilot is not a slave to the captain.
Comment by Semper Fly — February 1, 2013 @ 12:27 am
The big thing is the inverted flying – is it even remotely plausable? The shape of the wing, in upright position, is designed to provide lift as air passes over it, so when inverted it would pull the plane DOWN.
I thought it made the movie into a cartoon, and that was not the only cartoonish element – the inverted flying was the action portion of the movie, and the climax of the action came at the 25 minute mark, not even halfway through the movie – clearly designed for the short attention span of a child.
If a movie is unrealistic the drama is unfounded, and the emotional investment is simply not there. What a shame that such talented actors and directors took this script on.
There is more!! The “drug addict ex-wife porn-conflicted sad girl” overdosed after being warned of unusual purity of the drug… most drug addicts are smarter than that in real life; overdoses are generally caused by mixing two drugs. Also, she takes out a dirty rig – never heard of “harm reduction”? – and injects ACROSS the vein at such a steep angle it would have been unlikely to have hit the river of life. If drug addicts were really that stupid they would not even become addicted. Its all just so unrealistic.
I think that the purpose of the red handle was to show the FA’s legs as she braced herself to come out of inverted position.
Flight was the first movie I have watched in 7 months – get me outta here!!
Comment by Ellin Callvis — February 2, 2013 @ 4:08 pm
Having just watched the movie, l have very much enjoyed reading all the comments and appreciate the expertise. I work in Human Factors so would be interested in comments (as a desk top exercise) on “contributing factors”. what was interesting about the movie was it did depict (purposely or accidently, who knows with Hollywood) how complicated and mulifaceted an accident may be. Cheers!
Comment by Jo — February 3, 2013 @ 9:07 am
My only question is if the movie had made up an airplane why are half of the criticisms presented here for it not being exactly like the MD
?
Comment by Anthony — February 8, 2013 @ 12:40 pm
Actually like 90% of this review is incorrect. He drops his gears and breaks to slow the plane, drops the fuel because they are crashing, and drops flaps 30* to attempt to control the pitch of the dive. These are all reasonable actions to take in an actual crash.
Comment by Anthony — February 8, 2013 @ 12:44 pm
Well, as an English Composition teacher, I have watched so many movies where the “hero teacher” comes to the school and not only saves the students in his or her class, but manages to uplift the whole community, get corrupt police and politicians indicted, and all this while never “visibly” engaging in the routine grading marathons that make up the bulk of any competent teacher’s workweek, so I do not expect Hollywood to depict physics correctly. I have, however, learned quite a lot from these posts but would still love a “red handle,” which I could pull up, down, twist around, clockwise, anti-clockwise, any which way that could help save a classroom full of students who arrive in a my classroom unable to recognize that “up” is a preposition.
Comment by TeacherTeacher — February 8, 2013 @ 6:22 pm
Thanks to everyone here…Just watched the DVD and am happy the crash scene has been thoroughly discussed by folks who bring so much to the table by questions and answers. But a recent comment had a strong tone and seemed focused on trashing the movie without being very informed. Inverted flight was really well covered in previous posts, so the feasibility should not be re-raised here. (I.e. please read previous posts.) As for wings and lift: its not just the wing design that dictates up or down trajectory of the plane–it’s also the position of the wing flaps, which change the flow of air over the wings. And the crash is NOT the meat of the movie, but rather the heart-pounding way to experience the love-him/hate-him character portrayed by Denzel. (The crash kept me in a tense brace position until closing credits–well done director Zemeckis.) And one’s adult attention span should have squarely focused on Whip’s paradox of arrogant self-destruction and sympathetic guy as he stumbles unapologetically from one day to the next.
Drug scene…I’m tickled that someone here found the inaccuracies in the shooting-up scene. Here we were worried about whether the -1G of inverted flight would cause engine fires or if the locked elevator would allow the plane to glide level under manual control, yet no one previously noticed the unrealistic angle of needle penetration! Everyone has some knowledge to contribute. But give sad-addict girl a break. She hadn’t intended to shoot up…but her little toy box was knocked to the floor, exposing the blissful escape of the syringe…obviously she was jonesin and super-stressed by her piggish landlord, so she just didn’t think it through.
Vexing red handle thingy in the cockpit that must be engaged for manual control…It seems everyone agrees it’s a dreamed up mechanism of the JR-88, but why is it there? Not to show the FA’s shins. (Come on, really?) It’s manufactured existence is a way to get the FA into the cockpit (where she normally wouldn’t be) so that we can witness Whip’s humanity and caring side when he directs her to tell her son she loves him so that it will be recorded on the black box. (This recording is not used against Whip at the hearing, as one poster suggested. Indeed, the verbal calmness and control Whip exudes during the crash is taken as evidence of his heroic stature.) From his perspective, Whip is helping Margaret to find focus in the face of death by thinking of her son (because he needs her to properly operate the bizarre red handle thingy), and he must also know that it would mean a great deal to her son if they all die, to hear his mother’s voice on the black box. This scene thus serves to balance the loathing the audience felt moments earlier when Whip was sneaking vodkas into his OJ while comforting the passengers about the rough air. Thus, the red handle thingy serves an important role in the movie, despite it’s lack of realism. This movie does a great job of keeping the audience’s judgment of this character out of balance, and that’s the whole point of coping with the addiction of a functional alcoholic. He did the impossible by landing the plane (10 other pilots failed to do so on simulators, we’re told), yet he was under the influence the whole time. What are we to think of this man? Had a different, sober pilot been in command that day, we must assume that the flight would have perished in an irrecoverable dive because, at the end of the day, it was the worn jackscrew that held the fate of the aircraft. (Although I prefer my pilots stone-cold sober, I really miss the days when pilots actually could come out and connect with their passengers…ah, the days of old.)
Comment by c robinett — February 8, 2013 @ 7:15 pm
I want to ask all of you airline pilots if a pilot could go that long with an alcohol problem without the crew reporting him? I know the random blood testing could catch him but if any of the crew smelled alcohol, I would hope that someone would step up and stop him from taking control of an airplane, especially another pilot. The flying public needs to know this could never happen. I remember a few years back when a pilot was stopped by security after they smelled alcohol on him. I wasn’t as impressed with the movie as some of you. I thought it did a disservice to the airline industry and pilot’s union. I may be naive but I would have thought they would have thrown him to the wolves. If Skully would have had a .24 BAC after landing in the Hudson, he would have been exposed as a hero but a criminal, I hope.
Comment by Kevin Butler — February 9, 2013 @ 3:25 pm
Kevin:
I didn’t address the substance abuse issue at all when I wrote about this movie. I was limiting myself to a discussion of the flying aspects. But be assured that no pilot I know would condone or cover up this kind of problem. I certainly wouldn’t fly with a person who I knew was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If presented with this situation I would tell the other pilot to either take himself off the trip and seek help or I would call the Chief Pilot to discuss it.
Comment by Steve Satre — February 9, 2013 @ 8:00 pm
I googled this because, as a non pilot, I thought the sustained inverted maneuver was ridiculous, but accepted multiple system failures. Turns out, the inverted maneuver is theoretically possible but the system failure corrections are not. I appreciate the information. Btw, I am a lawyer, and it is hard to watch those movies without leaving shaking my head. Occupational hazard for all of us.
Comment by Jack — February 10, 2013 @ 3:46 pm
Okay enough about flying, how about the important stuff.. that was a really cool big watch Capt. Whip was wearing. Did anyone notice it was on his left wrist when he was mixing his Screwdrivers in the forward galley while addressing the passengers, and later in the movie it was on his right wrist? Weird. Subliminal implant from the writer/director?
Comment by Hooch — February 11, 2013 @ 5:57 am
Enjoyed the movie, have mad respect for flight crews. I flew a former boss’s Cessna once in a figure 8 over Santa Monica years ago & it was quite the experience but won’t lie the first thing I did after landing was jump out & kiss the concrete. That said, I haven’t been on a plane since 9/11 & it’s unlikely I’ll ever get on a plane again unless I can book my seat INSIDE the black box… still though loved the movie in spite of the implausibility factor & really am in awe of people who can fly planes & are gifted. Those skills are truly amazing.
Comment by Suz — February 11, 2013 @ 10:16 am
WOW……Fun movie,
I am a flight simmer in real life (737/800 NGX)…lol, …back to movie, in crash sequence, after engines out, apologize if this was posted earlier, but did he say, “start the APU” and if he did, and elevator pitch cleared to a new position after roll completed, did that enable his glide till bad day event #x, left wing strike!
Will have to watch again.
Agree all great posts. I told my wife, this was a movie she would enjoy, and if it spark’s industry wide debate and conversation “ENTERTAINMENT ACCOMPLISHED”,
Comment by Mike — February 13, 2013 @ 3:32 pm
I don’t know about flying, I’m an IT engineer, I think the number of movies using nerds playing with computers and having a realistik scenario must be approximatly 0.
We know that Hollywood plays with reality on planes since Alain Delon acting as captain of the concorde, open a windows a +mach 2, put his arm outside to fire a sos flare to divert a missile, and finaly lands on a glacier, now that’s a hero
Let’s enter a movie theater with child eyes and enjoy it.
As long as we all know that the Millenium Falcon really exist …
Comment by Stephane — February 13, 2013 @ 4:20 pm
Interesting reading these comments and I have no problem with them.
Except some take all this way too seriously. Imagine a cop show based on real life: we might have an entire episode of some guy typing a report with one finger. As a teacher I invite the Hollywood cameras to come and watch me grade until 3 AM. As a film goer I’d prefer to see the teacher win the hearts o those inner city kids. How about a real film about the Civil War: 90 minutes of dysentery, chewing coffee grounds, men crying for mom as they die in an open field through the night. I’d rather not.
This is a fun exercise. But knowing a little about film and TV…believe it or not — sometimes wrong things are put into films, whether it is the red lever or the cops who can make cars fly. It’s a part of the fun and let’s us focus on the real meat of the story — the people.
Comment by OP3366 — February 17, 2013 @ 8:34 am
If I were an airline pilot, I would not like to see any movie that puts pilots in a bad light. The industry is suffering enough from high fuel costs and bad management. If you are going to make this type of movie, how about a disclaimer at the end. I would never believe any of the flight crew would want to fly with a drunk pilot and would blow the whistle.
As a high school teacher, I know how professionals can suffer from poorly written movie scripts that people believe without question!
Comment by Philip J Annella — February 20, 2013 @ 10:15 am
I used to fly small single-engine planes, and my take on the takeoff in turbulence is this: contrary to what some of you have said about taking off in rough weather, they were not clear of the runway when Washington’s character dipped the nose of the plane and applied throttle, then climbed immediately. I agreed with that, as it would give the plane more speed in case of wind shear or sudden crosswind turbulence. Pilots want to clear that rough weather as soon as they can, and if that involves getting as fast and as high as possible then so be it. Going above the design speed rating of the aircraft is a bit risky though.
Comment by Jerry — February 21, 2013 @ 6:49 am
This comment is probably a bit off topic, but as a layman with no flying experience at all, I just wanted to express my appreciation for your “good natured” fact checking – a previous commenter called for everyone to “just relax and enjoy the movie”, but while I found your post to be quite educational, I didn’t at any point feel that you were “dissing” on what amounted to prime entertainment. Hey, that’s why the bookstore has aisles for fiction and for non-fiction, right? So thank you for being understanding and appreciating of the fiction and for providing some very interesting non-fiction to boot!
Comment by smack — February 25, 2013 @ 8:17 pm
Thanks smack. Though I may not have clearly stated it, I did enjoy the movie. I have no problem with some minor suspension of disbelief when I enter a movie theater. And as I stated in the first paragraph, I’m a fan of Denzel. He always delivers.
Comment by Steve Satre — February 26, 2013 @ 12:35 am
“Flying that close to the “barber pole” in that kind of turbulence not only makes for a very uncomfortable ride, but also exposes the plane to potential structural damage.”
Guess he ain’t called ‘Whip’ for nothing
Comment by kreaturen — February 26, 2013 @ 9:12 pm
I have,of late been imbibing a whole gamut of information about commercial airline pilots and a day in their lives. The info that is available online pertains to U.S.airlines mainly and a few European Airlines too.
Well I am a frequent flier (in India), on Boeing 737 and Airbus A 320s.I haven’t seen a PIC doing a walk around. Maybe I was too busy boarding the aircraft or stowing my cabin baggage.
An incident of the 1 st Feb 2013 comes to mind. While boardin a flight (Boeing 737 – 800) The two gentlemen responsible for transporting us chatted all the way while walking down the tarmac, boarded the Aircraft, waited for it to close and flew off to Calcutta (me inside).So much for regulations.
Comment by Jayanta.B — March 11, 2013 @ 1:14 pm
I had to block all those details so I could watch the movie. The overspeed scene was stupid, the course change request to ATC in degrees was…weird 30 degrees right? I think? The yoke falling was weird and then switching from hydraullics to MANUAL WHAT??. The trim wheel instead of the electric trim was out of this world. the flaps not tearing up, the fires aaahhhhh!!! The wings not tearing from the airframe during the initial climb….Hollywood!!!
BUT the thing you all missed. NOBODY HAD THEIR HAIR STANDING WHILE INVERTED THAT I CAN RECALL!! I may have to look at those scenes again.
Stay tuned for his return as a crop duster or flying the 172 he had in the barn inverted.
Comment by JR — March 11, 2013 @ 11:05 pm
I will have a go on my virtual pilot sim. I feel safer that way!! ‘)
Thanks for a great article and video…I really enjoyed it!
Cheers
Jay
Comment by Jay — March 14, 2013 @ 6:36 am
He stumbles slightly on the first step after doing the walk-around, as he mounts the stairs to climb back to the cockpit. So the point of the walk-around sequence (leading to the stumble) is probably to show his inebriated state is affecting his performance to some extent.
Comment by dw — March 25, 2013 @ 11:07 am
If you think movie this stretched the truth a bit, then from this 24 year railroaders view, the Denzel movie “unstoppable” ripped it from end to end. I will see flight in the near future and glad I read this page for some insight into the realism or lack thereof. On another note, I have seen many pilots do a walk around on the flights that I have taken, I guessed it was required, surprised it isn’t.
Comment by MIke — March 29, 2013 @ 6:59 pm
Many years ago when I was at the Village of Goli, while playing Jai Alai, I witnessed a plane to take a similar dive. Later I found out that the pilot had suffered from a cardiac arrest.
Comment by Khandan — March 30, 2013 @ 4:34 am
Believe it or not many Captains perform the walk around regardless on weather, seems like at American Airlines it all depends on who is the pilot flying for that leg but I’ve seen plenty of Captains doing the walk while working on the ramp. At Eagle I’ve heard of Captains doing the post flight walk (required at mx stations) for the FO if the FO has a tight deadheading connection to make.
Comment by Alex — March 31, 2013 @ 7:07 am
im a professional fire fighter…. would you like to hear about every little flaw in every movie ever made with a fire fighting scene??
its hollywood, just watch the movie and accept it for what they ALL are… ENTERTAINMENT!!!
Comment by george — April 3, 2013 @ 9:31 am
Just some observations about this movie’s borrowing:
1) “Whip” – Named for “Whip Russell”, the hero of Martin Caidin’s eponymously titled book. (I’m sure most airplane enthusiasts heard of him.)
2) “Pilots who attempted to duplicate the crash landing all failed and crashed the plane” – this happened after the Sioux City crash landing.
3) “Stripped jackscrew” and flying inverted – as noted by many, the Alaska Air crash.
Comment by Jubal — April 4, 2013 @ 11:18 pm
I’m a flight controls engineer. First off, the horizontal stabilizer is not the same as the elevator. The HSTA (horizontal stabilizer trim actuator) jackscrew was at fault for the crash in the movie, but that would not cause frozen elevators, only frozen elevator trim or uncommanded stabilizer movement, or possibly the loss of the horiz stab. The elevators should have been free to move. All airplanes have some form of backup pitch control. Second, the handles in the cockpit were most likely left and right aileron and/or elevator disconnects. These handles appear in some cockpits to separate the left and right control surfaces in the event of a jam on one side of the control system. Also, it was not a handle for reversion to manual controls. Hydraulically boosted flight controls are designed to revert to manual control automatically upon hydraulic failure via manual reversion linkage that bypasses the hydraulic actuators.
Comment by Dan — April 16, 2013 @ 3:07 am
What? No Auto pilot? Airplane had him! I want my $7.75 back ! Auot could of saved the day ! After getting reinflated !
Comment by Don Hillberg — May 12, 2013 @ 8:09 pm
Did anybody noticed that the stabilizer was not in nose down position in neither of two scenes that aircraft tail was shown?
Comment by Ron — May 19, 2013 @ 4:17 am
HELLO!!! IT’S A MOVIE!!!
I’m not a pilot but I was also shaken by the stream of “technical glitches”in the script. I work in television so I’m adept at ignoring them especially when there’s halfway decent acting. The film is written for the average Joe. I saw a poster once chronicling a 747 doing a loop over Seattle but I can’t remember if it was just a rendering or based on an actual event. But Tex Johnson pulled this off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE
Comment by Mad Dog — May 21, 2013 @ 3:10 pm