Producer: It's a Nicolas Cage movie. Stephen Moss: That doesn't
always bode well, does it? My name is Steve Moss, and for 35 years I was a senior inspector of air accidents at the Air Accidents Investigation
Branch at Farnborough. You've asked me to view
various clips from movies and critique how realistic they are. [explosion] The major accidents that I've dealt with in those 35 years started with the fire on the runway at Manchester in 1985, then Lockerbie, Pan Am 103. I've never heard of electrical failures causing anything like that. Normally, electrical
failures, if they happen, are likely to lead to gradual smoke. They don't really result in sort of explosions and fireballs and things like this. I've never heard of that.
Never heard of that. Because they're protected. They have circuit breakers and fuses like you have in your car or a home. [screaming] They would lose
consciousness very quickly, within a few seconds. Authorities did say that it was likely, if they're free-falling
out of the aircraft, that they would come to, but they would be so confused and tumbling that they wouldn't know
what the hell was going on. Producer: And I guess for a realism rating for that one? Stephen: Three. Firstly, the aircraft
wreckage looks very realistic. I like that wiring looms
are all hanging down. I like...that's the sort of thing you see, carpets, seats everywhere. Brad Pitt and the zombie are in different parts of the aircraft. Depending on the nature of the impact, you can have a greater
chance of surviving, but sometimes it's the rear
and sometimes it's the center, over the top of the wing,
because that, on any aircraft, that is a very strong
part of the structure. However, if there's a fire, you're also sitting right
over the fuel tanks. I wouldn't say there's necessarily any great survival benefit
being in an aisle seat. If you've got an intact aircraft and there's a fire develops, then it's nice to be on an aisle seat rather than sort of jammed
up against the window. So, I don't think stats would, statistics would bear out that survivability is, in
an accident, in an impact, is greater for aisle seats
than for a window seat. I'll give it eight. [passengers scream] [gun fires, glass breaks] I've wrote here, "What is going on?" [producer laughs] I think it would simply
punch a hole in the window, so you'd have a bullet-sized hole. What this thing appears to show is that the window
disintegrates completely and takes a bit of the aircraft structure. Well, again, that really wouldn't happen because what's known as
the window belt line, so the part of the fuselage
that the window's mounting, is extra strong for that reason, because the holes that are
cut out for the windows are an obvious weak point. So they make sure that
the aircraft structure is beefed up in that area. [glass breaks] [people falling] They can run down. That's why if you see every time the flight attendants move a trolley and they stop, first thing they do is
they put on the brakes with their foot so that it doesn't slide. I'll give it four. [crash] I don't think there's
anything particularly wrong. I think that could happen and that's likely the way that
it would if it did happen, or if it does happen. The oxygen masks, yes, that's fair enough. They're designed to do that if you have a depressurization that was extremely rapid depressurization. People tend to think that it
can happen with an impact. With a very heavy impact, vertical impact, sometimes they drop down, but their primary purpose is to drop down if the aircraft depressurizes at altitude. So, you know, all that's
to the visual effect. It's known in the trade
as the rubber jungle. Yeah, I'll give that an eight. [explosion] Yes, well. [laughs] Several things wrong with this clip. Bruce Willis seems to be able to reach inside the structure of the aircraft and pull a pipe out, which starts fuel gushing out. I don't think that would
really be possible. Another misconception amongst filmmakers is that jet fuel is incredibly flammable. It's not, it's the reverse, it's much less flammable than petrol. From the start, I don't
think that the flame going from his cigarette
lighter along a trail and then up onto the
aircraft would ever happen, certainly not in those low temperatures. There's something about Bruce
Willis films, isn't there? Is it "Armageddon" where he goes up in a space shuttle to try... and that thing's bouncing
off rocks, you know, and they're the most
delicate thing in the world. You know, a fleck of paint
could bring those down. Producer: If you had to
give that one a rating out of 10, what would you give it? Stephen: Two. [passengers yell] Ken: The elevator feels really stiff, sir. Whip: All right, don't force it. Stephen: He says "the
elevator" has gone stiff, as though it's a lift. Well, no, they're always referred to in the plural, elevators. They're the movable surfaces at the rear of the aircraft that are controlled by the pilots to make the aircraft go up or go down or pitch up and pitch down. Ken: Gear's down. I don't think hydraulics is the problem, sir. Whip: We need to dump the fuel. Stephen: In an emergency,
you always dump fuel. No, afraid not. That's the last thing on your mind. You'd be trying to get the
aircraft under control. Dumping fuel isn't going to help you. The reason that long-haul
aircraft might dump fuel is when they've got lots of time to prepare for an emergency landing. In an emergency like this, where they're struggling
to control the aircraft, dumping fuel wouldn't even
enter into their heads. Ken: Oh, Lord Jesus, we're inverted! Whip: We're fine, listen, we're level. We can maintain altitude like this. [plane roars] Stephen: Rolling an airliner inverted and flying it inverted, I really don't think so. I'm not sure the structure
would actually withstand. You'd break a wing or something because they're not meant
to fly under negative G. Whip: Now we gotta
revert to manual control. This side first. Ken: OK, got it. Nothing, no control. Stephen: The scenario of this is a little bit obscure. He talks about hydraulic failure and then talks about going to manual. He then has this big handle
that he pulls in select, and it gives him manual control. Most modern aircraft, it wouldn't be possible
to fly them in manual, and bigger aircraft, you can't fly them
manually. They're too heavy. Automated voice: 20. Whip: Brace. Brace for impact. [crash] Stephen: Seems to be
relatively straightforward, what's known as a deadstick landing. In other words, no engine's operating. And it's probably nose high. So he'd make the landing like that to try and touch down, so the cockpit would be
well clear of the ground. So, it's only if they ran into something, a solid object, you know, a building or something like that, that the cockpit would be compromised. But the scenario doesn't
really hang together, so I'll give that a five. Of the clips I've seen, that, I think, is most realistic. I think that is what would happen. It's quite well done, the graphics. What happens next, though, I think is perhaps not so realistic. John: Hey, hey! Stephen: Now, if we look at the wreckage, the term we used to use was "disrupted." It's very badly broken up. As he runs in, he keeps
coming across passengers, like this person on fire. I don't think anybody
would've survived the impact. I notice an engine is still winding down. Yes, maybe, but I think the engine would be pretty much battered and jammed by the impact. I'll give that eight. Sully: Birds. Jeff: Whoa. [thuds] Stephen: When you
certify an engine design, a new engine design, they actually fire birds at it of a specified weight and speed and check that the
engine doesn't break up. It's gonna get damaged,
but what they don't want is for it to stop. [engines dying] Sully: Ignition start. Stephen: It sort of
gives you the impression that the engines have failed completely. I don't think they did. I think they weren't
delivering enough power for him to remain airborne, and I think there would
have been a lot of... it all goes very quiet and very still. I think there would have
been a lot of vibration. I mean, it is realistic
and then it should be, because I think it's
probably one of the most documented sequence of events of recent years, isn't it. One of the things that I
didn't like about this film wasn't the technical side of it, it was the totally invented antipathy from the National
Transportation Safety Board and Sully himself. In other words, they
come across as bullying and accusative that he
didn't do the right thing. That was a complete invention. I know, I believe Sullenberger himself said that that was not, that the NTSB actually supported him. He famously was in a
film called "Cast Away," where there is an air crash. He, I think, is the only survivor. That was quite a bit unrealistic. You know, with engines continuing to run, and at one point he's in danger of being sucked into this
engine that was still running even though it was in water. Oh, I think it's gotta be at least a nine. Howard: OK, set course for 090. Preparing to descend. [engines fail] Stephen: Maybe there's
documentary evidence that says that Howard Hughes did
fly in shirtsleeves, without a seat belt, in what looks like a car
seat with a headrest, in what appears to be
quite a nice, sizable room. I mean, this is supposed
to be a fighter, isn't it, a prototype fighter or a fighter bomber. They're incredibly compact. You see bits of the structure, there's pipes and wires everywhere. I really would very much doubt if the prototype of a new combat aircraft was as roomy and uncluttered as that. Howard: Aah! I'm going down! [crash] [explosion] Stephen: Now, if we look at the wing route here that's visible, you can see a dent in it. But in the other shots of it, it's pretty much intact apart from the bits it's lost. Not too sure about the landing gear running across the roof. Producer: Did you have a
realism mark for this one? Stephen: Six. [metal clanking] I'm intrigued about what these devices are that they're fastening into the fuselage. I think the first time you
tried to put any weight on this or to put any pull on
it, those would pull out. There's not a lot holding
them in the fuselage. They'd just give way. Assuming it's a real airborne
sequence and not CGI. It must have been pre-prepared. So, yes, you can do a shot like this, but the aircraft's probably got strengthened rigging inside it, an invisible rigid ring. I would have given it a five, but I will give it one for the fact that it is a well-prepared stunt. [passengers scream] The sound of the engines is all wrong. They have recorded a twin
piston engine aircraft, which makes that sort of growling dive-bomber-type noise. This aircraft is a turboprop, which makes a sort of more like a whine 'cause it's got propellers. It makes, they all make the same sound, and that's not the case. This was quite well known at the time, a quite famous accident at the time, because some people survived
for, I think it was 72 days, in those freezing conditions, and I'm afraid the macabre bit was that they actually had to resort to cannibalism to survive. But of course it was cannibalism of those who died in the accident. [plane engines roaring] [beeping] There's a warning light
flashing that says "pull up." I'm pretty certain that that would not have been
fitted to this aircraft at the period of 1972, was it? 1973? It's a system called Ground
Proximity Warning System, and it was developed and mandated in 1974. I think they're getting it confused with what is known as a stall warning, because the pilot is
heaving back on the stick to try and avoid the mountain. He would probably be in danger
of stalling the aircraft. [crash] [passengers scream] One of the first things to note is the whole sequence
is lasting far too long. I timed it from first impact with the mountain where the tail came off until it came to rest,
and it was a minute. Another very common movie misconception, because I guess they just want to stretch out the action a bit. You know, the real thing probably would have been
over in a few seconds. And certainly this massive ski jump that the aircraft performs, and it lands, it's still
intact, it's not even deformed. It would have been a
massive, crushing blow. I'd give it six out of 10. [crash] I've written here, "Like this one." A water landing is a ditching. Lot of media get that wrong. They talk about, "The
aircraft ditched on land." Ditching is purposely
executed landing on water. It depends on the type of aircraft. The "Sully" film showed
that it can be done with a modern airline. It's one of the very few
cases with a modern airliner actually successfully ditching. It's not the worst thing that can happen. I happen to know that the B-24 Liberator was a difficult aircraft to ditch. It had a habit of breaking into two. The poor old pilots were the least likely I think to get out. I don't think the gunners
would stay in their turrets if they know they're going to ditch. They would take up a position probably somewhere around
the middle of the aircraft. I'm gonna give it nine. I've wrote here, "What is going on?" [producer laughs]
I would recommend not confusing movies with documentaries. Just sit back and enjoy the flick.
I remember seeing Moss in a lot of older ACI episodes, obviously ones where the AAIB were involved.
The YouTube channel 74 Gear does several of these.
Out of interest, he says that heβs never heard of an electrical fault causing an explosion like the Final Destination clip, but isnβt that like TWA 800?