Tuesday, January 20, 2009

What Makes a Hero?

An interesting point was made at VFR. Lawrence Auster asked:
Was Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III's safe landing of US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson River an exceptional accomplishment, even a miracle, as many believe, or, as a correspondent has put it, the outcome that would be expected of a typical, experienced airline pilot? To answer the question, we need to strip the situation down to its essentials, leaving only the water landing itself. That is, we need to eliminate the initial shock experienced by the flight crew when the flock of Canadian geese collided with the plane and destroyed the engines; eliminate the uncertainty about whether to turn back to La Guardia; eliminate the pilot's sighting of Teterboro airport in New Jersey and the discussion about whether to try to land there; eliminate the plane's curve from a northern to an eastern to a southerly course to head down the Hudson; and eliminate the challenge of keeping the engineless plane aloft long enough to maneuver it over the Hudson.

Once we've gotten rid of all those factors, we're left with this "pure" scenario: An airliner has just taken off and climbed to 3,000 feet and both its engines go out. It has several miles of a mile-wide, relatively calm river in front of it. Under those circumstances, what kind of landing would be expected? Would the smooth landing that Capt. Sullenberger achieved, with the plane left floating intact on the water, be the expected norm, or would it be very unusual?
Auster regards
...the talk about "heroism" in this and so many other cases as the hysteria of the dopey and lazy press.
Although there is a lot of merit in this opinion, I think it is just one angle from which one can see the remarkable event on the Hudson.

I do not think that one should strip the immediate understanding of the situation in a shock situation and the following lightning quick decisionmaking from the event. It was as important as the landing itself which was, indeed, "only" what can be expected from a fully trained pilot of that calibre. Still, Sullenberger was not a hero. Heroism needs, so I think, some ethical component which is lacking here. But then, to go back and search the sinking aircraft again and again to make sure that nobody was left behind has an element of heroism. John Maynard, and those for whom that fictitious character stands, are heroes. The British fighter pilot who crash landed his jet in an open field when he could have saved himself by the ejection seat at the peril of having the abandoned jet crashing into a village was a hero. That happened about 40 years ago in Eastern Westphalia and I have never forgotten it, although there was only a minor notice in our regional newspaper.

To me this is another instance of the somewhat natural reaction to a feminized world of mediocrity, self-centeredness, bitching and complaining, where a difficult job superbly performed must appear as heroism. What a "pilotesse" suffering from PMS or post-menopausal complaints would have done in Sullenberger's place I hate to think. We are so starved of heroes that any politically correct, widely accepted instance remotely touching heroism will trigger off a deluge of admiration.

An interesting bit of insight into the mind of one from that remarkable class of men gives the interviewwith Jürgen Vietor, the first officer of the legendary flight LH 181. In 1977, during the "German Autumn", after the cold-blooded murder of his captain by Arab terrorists at Aden, Yemen, the young first officer (like Sullenberger a former military pilot) had to fly the 737, which had just undergone a gruelling emergency landing, solo to land safely at Mogadishu, Somalia, an airport, that had before, literally and metaphorically, not been on his, a Boeing 737 pilot's, map. Vietor is adamant that he is no hero. Maybe not, but anyway, I strongly oppose his definition of what makes a hero. HERE is the interview.

6 comments:

Just Cause said...

I don't agree that one should be excluded from being a hero if the task undertaken was part of one's job.

The emergency service personnel on 9/11 who lost their lives are regarded as heroes but they were just doing their job also.

I'll admit having too many heroes would result in diluting the status however that doesn't mean we should be overly harsh in denying hero status where an extraordinary feat has occured during the line of duty.

As a trainee pilot I recognise how many factors were involved in bringing down a heavy, speeding chunk of metal safely to rest in water and they are immense. The amount of energy involved boggles the mind and even the slightest of errors could be catastrophic. Maintaing the right angle of attack with no engines thus little or no hydraulic power, maintaining composure knowing that one mistake and lots of people including yourself are going to die horrendously, thinking about your wife and kids getting the news of your death, seeing the water approaching rapidly knowing you only have one shot, is more than just skill - that's a gift!

People should recognise that not every pilot could have achieved what Sullenberger achieved and that there is a large percentage of pilots out there that don't practise hand flying but instead leave the computer to do it all and only do what they need to pass the 6 monthly check rides. The outcome with one of these pilots in charge would have been very, very different.

With this in mind, is Sullenberger a hero? I think the passengers will agree that he is.

Anonymous said...

I am inclined to agree that the pilot
was not a hero but an unusually skilled pilot performing a landing that few of his fellow pilots could have done. Not only did he have to have the approach angle dead right, he also had to have the wings perfectly aligned, had he entered at an angle the wing would have ripped off and the plane and its passengers would have been shredded. He showed professionalism of the highest standard and the iron nerves one expects in those jobs.

The_Editrix said...

"I think the passengers will agree that he is."

No doubt and I agree that one can see it that way.

Rachel said...

You had me nodding in agreement until that stupid comment about the "pilotesse." I think a well-trained pilot of either gender could have accomplished what Sullenberger did, even if suffering from PMS, indigestion, a headache, or a bad mood. When there is a life-threatening emergency the mind and body respond.

The_Editrix said...

Yeah Rachel! That is why we have so many pilotesses and that's why the US Navy's first female F-14 Tomcat pilot was killed while attempting to land on the USS Abraham Lincoln, destroying a multi-million aircraft in the process. Not to speak of all the brave soldiers, policemen and firefighters who were killed when trying to cover a female "colleague's" arse who wasn't up to the job.

Do spare me your feminist rhetoric.

Rachel said...

Editrix, I was out of line classifying your comment as "stupid." I apologize. What I should have said is that I take issue with it, for the reasons I stated. As for your response, one crash seems like a pretty thin reed to rest a proposition on. I am not familiar with the incident; is there evidence that the reason for the crash was PMS or something specifically female? Is there hard evidence that female pilots are more likely to crash planes than male? If not, your comment is unsupported.

You need not ask me to spare you my "feminist rhetoric" as I don't have any. I believe women and men are equal in dignity and worth. Beyond that, I don't believe in quotas or lowered standards for anyone. I agree with you that this results in others carrying an unfair burden. I don't need favors from anyone or expect them. I disagree that PMS disqualifies one from flying a plane, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.