NOTE - THERE ARE POTENTIAL (and real) SPOILERS THROUGHOUT THIS REVIEW.
This is probably not going to be a politically-correct review. The politically correct part is that the film dealt with a pilot coming to terms with lifelong alcoholism and substance abuse ... admitting guilt perhaps due to an epiphany he had when he realized that he was possibly "part" of the problem that caused the crash.
The film's plot was well acted and well played out. However, given the known facts presented in the film, I was left with the impression that the crash (and fatalities) would have occurred regardless of whether or not the pilot was sober.
During the meeting between the union and management, it was clear that management considered the event a matter of pilot negligence. The union, however, pointed out that the toxicology test given to the pilot was invalid due to 3 critical errors made during the test. In short, the union was telling management that the NTSB could not use the test against the pilot ... and that "management" could not use the test for disciplinary purposes. But, the union also pointed out (rightfully so) that the aircraft had issues - and that they planned to pursue "manufacturing defect" as the cause of the crash.
Then came the surprise. During the NTSB hearing, they released findings indicating that the crash situation came about because a "screw" that should have been replaced a year earlier had NOT been replaced. This put the onus (blame) squarely on their airline for poor maintenance. And the intoxication of the pilot (or lack thereof) would have made no difference to that defective screw.
The thing that left me scratching my head was the NTSB testimony about the two tiny vodka bottles. It doesn't make any difference whether or not the pilot suspended drink service. Consider this.
How many of us have gone to grocery stores to buy candies, etc. - later going to a theater to see a film? I have, that's for sure - because I know that candy from Walmart is much cheaper than theater candy. Likewise, it's much cheaper to buy those tiny liquor bottles from a liquor store than it is on a plane. Individual passengers could have brought the tiny bottles on board ... and those two vodka bottles could have been put there by the flight crew as part of their patrol to pick up trash. With two flight attendants dead, there'd be no way to know for sure what they did or didn't do in that regard.
So OK, the pilot was intoxicated. But his grand admission near the end of the film did nothing to remove blame from the airline for poor maintenance on the screw that caused the accident. And whether or not one of the dead flight attendants had an alcohol problem is neither here nor there because the origin of the bottles could have been one or more passengers. And THAT is a possibility the NTSB didn't consider.
(Devil's advocate mode) - Had I been the pilot, and after knowing of the mechanical failure of that screw (and that it was the airline's fault), I wouldn't have felt guilty at all. Even the NTSB said his handling of the crisis was great (and people in the hearing audience responded with applause when the NTSB said so). Rather, I'd have seen this as a wake-up call. Due to the stress of the accident, I'd have requested a one-year leave of absence to deal with the stress. During that downtime, I'd have gone into substance abuse rehab on my own dime. And if successful, I'd likely have courted employment with other airlines who'd be more than happy to hire a "hero."
P.S. I'm a 64 year-old guy who doesn't drink or use any medication (even aspirin) ... outside of the glipizide I take for my type 2 diabetes. And while I see intoxication as a serious issue while operating any vehicle, I sometimes wonder if, in some cases, intoxication is used as a "scapegoat" to minimize the effect of other factors involved in an accident. Drunk is drunk and stoned is stoned. But broken is also broken.
This movie would have been much different if it had featured the inappropriate service record of the aircraft (and its "screw") as the overriding plot device ... with the pilot's alcohol/drug use as a minor player in the incident. Remember that even sober pilots recreating the incident in simulation killed every passenger on board. The "affected" pilot, on the other hand, saved all but 6 passengers. Clearly, without the defective part, the flight would have likely been uneventful ... even if the pilot was intoxicated (since a sober/trained copilot was also onboard).
This is probably not going to be a politically-correct review. The politically correct part is that the film dealt with a pilot coming to terms with lifelong alcoholism and substance abuse ... admitting guilt perhaps due to an epiphany he had when he realized that he was possibly "part" of the problem that caused the crash.
The film's plot was well acted and well played out. However, given the known facts presented in the film, I was left with the impression that the crash (and fatalities) would have occurred regardless of whether or not the pilot was sober.
During the meeting between the union and management, it was clear that management considered the event a matter of pilot negligence. The union, however, pointed out that the toxicology test given to the pilot was invalid due to 3 critical errors made during the test. In short, the union was telling management that the NTSB could not use the test against the pilot ... and that "management" could not use the test for disciplinary purposes. But, the union also pointed out (rightfully so) that the aircraft had issues - and that they planned to pursue "manufacturing defect" as the cause of the crash.
Then came the surprise. During the NTSB hearing, they released findings indicating that the crash situation came about because a "screw" that should have been replaced a year earlier had NOT been replaced. This put the onus (blame) squarely on their airline for poor maintenance. And the intoxication of the pilot (or lack thereof) would have made no difference to that defective screw.
The thing that left me scratching my head was the NTSB testimony about the two tiny vodka bottles. It doesn't make any difference whether or not the pilot suspended drink service. Consider this.
How many of us have gone to grocery stores to buy candies, etc. - later going to a theater to see a film? I have, that's for sure - because I know that candy from Walmart is much cheaper than theater candy. Likewise, it's much cheaper to buy those tiny liquor bottles from a liquor store than it is on a plane. Individual passengers could have brought the tiny bottles on board ... and those two vodka bottles could have been put there by the flight crew as part of their patrol to pick up trash. With two flight attendants dead, there'd be no way to know for sure what they did or didn't do in that regard.
So OK, the pilot was intoxicated. But his grand admission near the end of the film did nothing to remove blame from the airline for poor maintenance on the screw that caused the accident. And whether or not one of the dead flight attendants had an alcohol problem is neither here nor there because the origin of the bottles could have been one or more passengers. And THAT is a possibility the NTSB didn't consider.
(Devil's advocate mode) - Had I been the pilot, and after knowing of the mechanical failure of that screw (and that it was the airline's fault), I wouldn't have felt guilty at all. Even the NTSB said his handling of the crisis was great (and people in the hearing audience responded with applause when the NTSB said so). Rather, I'd have seen this as a wake-up call. Due to the stress of the accident, I'd have requested a one-year leave of absence to deal with the stress. During that downtime, I'd have gone into substance abuse rehab on my own dime. And if successful, I'd likely have courted employment with other airlines who'd be more than happy to hire a "hero."
P.S. I'm a 64 year-old guy who doesn't drink or use any medication (even aspirin) ... outside of the glipizide I take for my type 2 diabetes. And while I see intoxication as a serious issue while operating any vehicle, I sometimes wonder if, in some cases, intoxication is used as a "scapegoat" to minimize the effect of other factors involved in an accident. Drunk is drunk and stoned is stoned. But broken is also broken.
This movie would have been much different if it had featured the inappropriate service record of the aircraft (and its "screw") as the overriding plot device ... with the pilot's alcohol/drug use as a minor player in the incident. Remember that even sober pilots recreating the incident in simulation killed every passenger on board. The "affected" pilot, on the other hand, saved all but 6 passengers. Clearly, without the defective part, the flight would have likely been uneventful ... even if the pilot was intoxicated (since a sober/trained copilot was also onboard).