Would You Say He Is One Hell Of A Pilot? Options

[albertchampion]

a successful landing on water. with everyone surviving. with the aircraft not breaking up.

i saw the craft in the water surrounded by rescue boats.

i listened to a passenger on npr.

and later saw a weather channel muppet reporting that the craft landed in the hudson just west of 48th street.

just west of my taichi sensai. i telephoned him. he told me that he was on the banks of the hudson when it happened. he was at the 44th street pier. he watched it happen. he said that the airbus descended until it was about 10-20ft above the water, then the nose lifted, and the plane settled onto the hudson.

he said that all kinds of watercraft appeared to have been prepositioned because the airbus was virtually immediately surrounded. by fdny waterboats to circleline ferry.

he said that he was watching it as it was framed by the uss intrepid.

i asked him if he got pix[he always carries his camera, except when he doesn't]. he said that because he was teaching a class, we was cameraless. and then in the background, his wife said, "what about your cellphone camera?".

he completely forgot that the phone was more than just a phone.

way too sad. he was in the right place at the right time.

i close this way. i am astonished by the skill and presence of mind of that pilot/copilot. if the story that they lost both engines on climb-out from LGA is accurate, they were damned good and professional to have landed the bird on water and saved everyone. in my book, that may be the commercial piloting nobel prizewinning feat.

[rob balsamo]

Good point Forthetrees.

But you may want to add to your post that you are being sarcastic... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There are some out there (well, one or two idiots) who think Designated FAA Check Airmen arent as skilled as the "terarhists" because they couldnt squarley hit the WTC at such speeds the first few tries in the aircraft type they train others, which is more maneuverable than a 767. Of course these same people who think as such refuse to debate real pilots on the topic, or any other topic regarding 9/11.

[forthetrees]

Good point Forthetrees.

But you may want to add to your post that you are being sarcastic... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There are some out there (well, one or two idiots) who think Designated FAA Check Airmen arent as skilled as the "terarhists" because they couldnt squarley hit the WTC at such speeds the first few tries in the aircraft type they train others, which is more maneuverable than a 767. Of course these same people who think as such refuse to debate real pilots on the topic, or any other topic regarding 9/11.

Yes, thank you Rob for recognizing that. Actually, I'm using the thread to practice getting a succint, to the point version of that down to use as needed. I certainly don't mean to take anything away from the captain and crew of the Hudson flight, but I do think the credit he is rightfully being given for his flying skills is in sharp contrast to the pass Hani is given for his total lack of "flying" skill or experience. I'm hoping to see examples of much better writers than me commenting on this contrast in the public's perception of the realities of flying skills.