I can’t walk on water
I can’t walk on water but I can sure fly on it!!!
(Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: wonphatcat
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous O.M.F.G. Lizzie! | Should’ve just taken Next »
» 176 comments
-
Recent Comments
Nucky, the Official … on KINDNESS Nucky, the Official … on TRAIN ORIGAMI Ivan The Patron Sain… on KINDNESS Ivan The Patron Sain… on KINDNESS Ivan The Patron Sain… on TRAIN ORIGAMI lowly grunt on TRAIN ORIGAMI Nucky, the Official … on TRAIN ORIGAMI shortright the ivani… on TRAIN ORIGAMI Nucky, the Official … on KINDNESS Nucky, the Official … on Let’s imagine the look o… 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Shouldn’t that be “land on it?”
Flying on water…hmmm…
Excellent observation, Observer..
obvious observation win
Obviosity observationist sin.
LOL — I got nothin!
I am oblivious to your obvious observation.
Obfuscating the obvious with obtuse observations will not obscure the obvious.
obviously.
*face palm*
FAIL
lame
I know, right?
That was my first thought……
Flying on water or in like a penguin??
We’re still talking about this guy? Move on please.
they see me flyin’, they hatin’
They see you crashin’, they prayin’
lol.
I Lol’d!
Yes, feel free to at any time..
that’s what she said
You’d still be talking about this guy if you or someone you knew were on that plane.
exactly what I said. Dude’s one of my new heroes, but, yeah, enough with the captions about the ditching.
In the movie version, they’ll cast Vin Diesel to play him, and he’ll somehow manage to have bare arms and dark hair.
This guy did a great job and saved a lot of lives, and he did it by being smart and calm. I don’t feel any need to be cynical about him.
And a vest.
But no, the guy was the guy you wanted at the Conn when the geese hit the fan…
No, you really can’t. You can take off and land on water, but fly on it with jet engines? Nope.
FAIL!
The Russians have been messing with a cavitation free water jet for a while as a method of torpedo propulsion…
russian torpedoes… there’s something we should try to copy… remember what happened to the kursk?
.
they’re also trying to make ASMs that stay underwater until a hundred feet (or less) from the target ship in order to avoid the shipboard countermeasures…
Visions of ‘The Hunt for Red October’..
Very much so…
Do a bit of a search on Kursk and you’ll pull up some interesting stuff on what *may* have happened to that boat… not saying anything you’ll read is ‘true’ but when you’re getting into that end of arms development, the ‘truth’ is a flexible commodity at best…
If you really want to amaze people, you might add that the damned thing is supersonic – underwater. Man.
Oops – I’m wrong about that. Sorry.
And I guess hovercraft are just a myth, right?
Didn’t you read what I said?
-
I said fly on it with jet engines. Which are often called, gas turbines, and work on the principle that a tremendous thrust is required to drive the plane forward. The engine sucks air in at the front. The inlet and fan pull the air in. The compressor, raises the pressure of the air. The compressed air is then sprayed with fuel and the mixture is lit by an electric spark. The burning gases expand and blast out through the back of the engine. As the jets of gas shoot backward, the nozzle releases the air and gas mixture and the engine and the aircraft are thrust forward. Water = bad.
-
A hovercraft is a vehicle supported by a cushion of pressurized air. Most of them use at least two engines, both connected to large fans, like the propeller of the aircrafts. One is used to create the vertical airflow and it’s a blower fan responsible for lifting the vehicle by forcing air under the craft. The air therefore must exit throughout the “skirt”, lifting the craft above the area on which the craft resides. The other engines are used to provide the thrust and to horizontally steer the craft and can either have airplane-like flaps to direct the air or they can move themselves in order to change the direction.
-
Spot the difference?
WOW! Hell yeah, thanks for that.. :rolleyes:
-
And you’re absolutely positive that a hovercraft can’t be propelled forward using jet engines, right?
As of this moment, yes.
Oh, I see what you did there. Propelled forward. Nice touch.
Well, I did try and qualify it. I would agree with the lift though. I don’t think a jet engine would be suitable.
My error in reading.
Apologies.
i made a jet of gas shoot backward..
Me too, which is why my wife won’t let me eat Thai.
my wife thankfully can’t smell flatulence. or animal feces. or skunks. she can smell everything else though, influding the telltale scent of beer on my breath when I come home late….
*including even
Okie doke! Thanks again..
Actually, digging up my memory of Cold War tech, didn’t Jane’s mention JEt Hydros that the USSR built in the 1980s? It was mostly satellite intel, IIRC, but it was most definitely a twin jet engine hydroplane… it was something that the Germans had been working on in 1943, and the engineers of that stuff didn’t fall into allied hands… It’s unknown (to me) if they ever did get some of the stability issues sorted, but it did fly on water…very fast…
Jet boats work on much the same principle. It just draws in water and shoots it out at high pressure thus causing great thrust. TADA, flying ON water using a jet engine.
Jetboats??
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sully’s a hero. Yawn.
And it’s not funny. Yeah Sully….that’s all. Nappy time.
Boobs.
you called?
It was a plural….I DEMAND AT LEAST ONE MORE BOOB!!!
where ever there are Boobies, I am there…
*warms his hands*
The lamer the LOL, the funnier the comments! Thanks for the chuckle, gents.
Gee, we’re all missing Jane, aren’t we?
Except those who have been the recipient of her blistering wit. Otherwise, yep..
Yes, but I miss watching you get blistered… *sniff*
Yep but mostly my hands are…..who’s Jane again? She the one who’s pregnant?
By the way, my wife is pregnant…and her boobs look great.
Froo is pregnant, but Jane is the one with the green tea pot
avatar. She has big boobs without being in the family way.
i’ve only seen her teapot, but i’m intrigued…
We’re ALL intrigued (OK, except for one dude) Even the straight gals are interested in ‘the People’s Breasts’
* wonders if viking gal is wearing one of those armored bustiers….*
BOOBS!
LOL!
Link.
Who wants warm beer?
Stupid American question: Do you guys really drink beer “warm” or is it just not as cold as we’d normally serve it here? I’ve wondered about that…
I know Guiness is usually served warm. Down here all other beer is served ice cold! As for the UK, I’ll leave that one for Fester.
Warm is a comparitive term. Cellar temperature is around 50F
I’ve had Guiness both warm and cold and much prefer it at or close to room temp.
correct temp is 50-55F
Thing is with Guinness, if you like black coffee, you can drink
Guinness hot, let alone room temp…
Proper temperature for stout is close to the proper temperature for red wine – which is only considered “room temperature” because rooms used to be a fair bit cooler as a rule, probably around 60F (15C). That would be how our forebears could be comfortable wearing frock coats and waistcoats all the time, not to mention those silly-arse wigs……
What do you mean ’silly arse wigs’… I like me perriwig!
Is it buttered lurex, as well?
Ah, thanks for the info, Fester. I’d definitely call that at least “cool”. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure my local bar has served me beer warmer than that….(“Oh, yeah…we just put that in the cooler a little while ago…”)
They drink it warm in the Philipines, and if you really want it cold, you have to (gasp) add ice to it. no joke.
ICE? There is no God…
Depends on how it’s being served. Nice…link.
Depends on the beer. Coldness hides the taste, which with mass produced swill is no bad thing. With the Old Rasputin though, I want it merely cool. Incidentally, click my name for a great beer site.
Fine. Beerless boobies.
As an anatomy teacher…”shopped”!
LOL, I know, RIGHT!
Oops. Messed up email, I think.
Hmm. This better be right now.
I have no idea what’s wrong, but my avatar is different now
Test.
ARGH! I hate this pink monstrosity!
My ‘puter was running slow so I shut down and cleared my
cache, and now I have this stupid pepto avatar!
Email correct, check.
Username correct, check.
WTF is going wrong???
Test 2.
AARRGGGGHH!
*pant pant*
Okay, not a typo, then.
Test 3.
So it’s not an extra space, number, letter or punctuation, that I can tell. It must be something specifically designed to make me insane.
So I guess this will have to do, or else I go and change my email address. Dammit!
Sorry, everybody, for carrying on like an asshole.
:blush:
Maybe it’s picking up your IP address? Who knows, but you’re hovering at the edges of insanity and we don’t want to see you snap.
I do. It might be funny
-
Just kidding, Observer!
Boy do you have that right!
*PANT*
I HATE PINK! It makes me wanna redrum!!!
lol!
I thought it was rather run to read. No worries. Gravatar.com will help if you want something constant without having to play with emails.
THAT’S how you all have unique avatars.
I’ll have to pick one now!
Thanks! I’m really partial to his email address and don’t want to have to change it: I’ve been typing it for so long that I think my fingers are permanently fixed into the shape on the keyboard — kind of like arthritic hands!
No worries, I like being helpful or at least entertaining. I am rather fond of my email and it gave me some kind of meh green color if I recall.
Hey, Observer, just a suggestion, but what
about the business end of a telescope or
periscope, to go with your name?
PINK!!!111!! DO NOT WANT11!!!1
Heehee!
I’ll have a new one by tomorrow: gotta run now.
Thanks again.
OOOhhhh, I can’t wait to see how this turns out!! Or, if not a telescope or microscope, how about a magnifying glass? Or an eye at a keyhole?
By the way, your conversation with yourself was good for some giggling!
Test.
Dammit, Jim! I Had to change my email address anyway.
Gravatar wouldn’t allow my old one…grr!
But I think you’ll all appreciate this one.
Oooooooooooooooh! Very cool!
Gracias!
Link to it’s origin and the snopes investigation.
Even though it’s a composite image, it looks very cool bigger!
Doesn’t it? But I wanted to be honest, so snopes helped me.
It’s a fitting avatar for me: the false eye of god!
lol!
Very cool!
Cool, indeedy!
Eccentrica Galumbits!
LOL! The three titted whore of (can’t remember) but it’s in HHG2G!
Eroticon Six. (I do not have that great of a memory for detail; I just googled.)
Eroticon! Sounds like a FanFest for porn stars.
(probably is).
And I am here. There, couple of boobs who like to nestle in their brethren. Now, direct me to where I can faceplant into some friendly chest pillows… Or barring that, point and laugh.
Of the blue footed variety?
Indeed.
Captain Sullenberger:
BWAVO! *clappity, clappity!*
This man and his story were inspiring, this is what the American spirit truly is. He is a hero in every sense of the word.
I like how we’ve come to call anyone who does their job a “hero”. Its as if incompetence is considered the norm now.
The term “hero” is thrown around all too frequently. It should be reserved for those who go above and beyond what SHOULD be expected of them. Mr. Sullenberger simply did his job as he was trained to do. If that’s heroic, I’ll be sure to call my doctor a hero the next time he gives me a checkup. After all, he could very well save my life with that checkup, what a hero!
How about if we qualify it and say that it was a heroic effort to save the passengers?
…all-out effort to save his own ass, is more like it.
From what I recall, he did make sure every member of the passengers and crew were off the plane before he was.
Walked the aisles twice after everyone else was out.
That’s right.
Considering that his ass was directly related to saving the passenger’s collective asses, I think it’s all the same
CEA, whaddaya say?
I think you’re missing the point a little bit. Sure, he was doing what he was trained to do, but the set of circumstances was just right for him to save EVERY PERSON ABOARD THE PLANE. I know we’ve gone over this before, but how many ditches can you think of that involved no deaths?
-
So he was doing his job, and went above and beyond by making sure everyone was safe and off the plane before he left. That may be the definition of captain in some circles, but I’ll be happy with it as my definition of Hero, considering that Heroes are in short supply nowadays.
has there ever been a glut of them?
Comic. Books.
Good observation.
I meant real ones… Most of the people we call ‘hero’ owe more to Watchmen than Superman
Seconded, he did more than his job. His job expected casualities and he avoided a death toll.
By doing his job.
So you are saying he is the only person who has ever done their job as a pilot in his field? Since I believe we quantified the matter by pointing out the rarity of his particular feat.
Besides, do you really think my perspective or your perspective matters in this situation, I am pretty same in the assumption that the people who lived because of him consider him a hero, no matter our petty assessment. Same for cops or firefighters who “do their job.” Something exceptional was still done and despite your banality in the matter, he is considered a hero due to the accomplishment.
Every time you get on a plane it’s the pilot’s JOB to do everything in their power to get you there safely. Any less would have simply been not doing his job.
He is trained to get you down safely to the best of his ability, and the circumstances were perfect in this instance to maximize survival.
Are you insinuating the pilots on doomed airliners are any less heroic for having failed in their efforts to save everyone aboard the planes?
Because having heard flight recorders I’d strongly disagree.
He did his job AND he’s a hero.
Noun
Singular
hero
Plural
heroes
hero (plural heroes)
1. A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds.
2. A role model.
3. The main protagonist in a work of fiction.
4. A champion.
5. A large sandwich made from meats and cheeses.
-
What qualifies Sully as a ‘hero’ is the first one. I’d consider ditching a plane with no casualties to be an extraordinary deed. While he had circumstance and who knows what else on his side to make that happen, the fact is that it did happen.
-
No one is denigrating other pilots who have not managed to bring down planes safely. And you trying to change the subject like that means that you don’t understand the point.
Are you always this confrontational? I don’t believe I’ve said anything inappropriate to deserve such a bracing and hostile reply.
You’re focusing on the last sentence of that big long post I made. I’m simply pointing out that the majority here apparently believe that you’re wrong, and I was backing it up with facts. You’re changing the subject again. What you said was in no way inappropriate, but it was wrong.
So we agree to disagree, as I too believe YOU are wrong, just as you believe I am. And just because a majority holds an opinion doesn’t make them any more “right,” it just makes them the majority.
Captain Sullenberger would deny heroism, as would any other pilot who survived a plane crash and saved his passengers.
and that is the nature of the problem… 99.9% of us are passengers.
Now, I know the guy driving doesn’t want to die any more than I do, but, if the shit hits the fan, and I walk away mostly intact, then the guy who engineered that is a bloody hero…
MOST heroes deny heroism. They were all “just doing their job”
Guy behind my name ‘Never thought to mention’ the fact he’d won a VC…
…which is much better than a VD..
Denying heroism isn’t the same as not deserving it.
I have to agree with Stu here, obviously you personally are not denigrating other pilots. The fact that the public at large put this man on such a pedestal does do ust that. As I wrote in a post below, a good samaritan who goes into a burning home to rescue a neighbor, but fails, is still considered a hero. A pilot whose plane, circumstances, and luck don’t cooperate with him ISN’T as much a hero as this guy, according to many. That’s where the problem lies.
Read down a little and see what DWN said. I feel he has captured the argument in its beauty.
Most pilots don’t glide. There is an almost one for one correlation between ttoal engine failure scenarios with zero fatalities, and pilots who have had some real glider experience. Is the guy a hero? Probably. Was he doing his jobs? Hell, yeah… did he have knowledge that wants common in his line of work, again, hell yeah!
Based on the arguments given above, we may as well ditch the Purple Heart, The VC, the Croix de Gurerre, et seq., and all police, paramedic and fire fighter gallantry awards, since they’re all ‘Just doing their job’… and it makes the ones who don’t win one feel bad since it’s a personal slur on them…
Jesus, Mary, Joseph and George the little donkey…
Well, I have no problem with awards for being damned good at your job its just that.. well… what do we call people who go far beyond what we apparently use as standards for using the term “hero”. Superhero?
I didn’t disagree that the word is abused. Michael Jordan isn’t a ‘hero’.
Babe Ruth wasn’t a hero. If you still claiming that Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger isn’t a hero, then I don’t know what world you live in, and the only heroes there are exist in the comics…
All I’m saying is that if we take two equally skilled pilots who do their damndest to save their passengers, and the only difference is that one got lucky, and the other didn’t. Why is it right that we call only the one who got lucky a hero? They both performed the same actions, one just happened to live to tell about it? I dunno, maybe I’m being too much of a cynic on this one.
Sorry, Nathan, your example won’t wash because they would not be equally skilled if one made it and one didn’t. Given the circumstances in this particular case, the pilot trained in this maneuver, which not support your theory of luck.
*does*
You are. A person can do their job and still be a hero for doing their job exceptionally well. Most heroes have an excess of luck on their side to survive in the first place with skill making up the rest. Being a hero doesn’t mean you always have to be the underdog or the random Joe on the street. You can be a hero in the course of your job, doing part of your job description. Hero is a matter of perspective though it is also a function of success against great odds where others are counting on you.
If my humble definition can be accepted then the Capt is a hero. He succeeded against great odds with people counting on him. He need not slay a dragon or demand a medal. We are also not saying that he is the ONLY hero because he isn’t. He came out with a zero casualty rate. That is impressive and worthy of praise, luck or not. Luck only gets you so far. I already stated that a captain who only brings back 60% or even 40% against the odds would at least be a hero to those saved.
What I am finding bewildering in this discussion is people seem to want to denigrate Sully because they feel his status as hero demotes other pilots. It doesn’t. He did something exceptional and is being recognized. That’s it. Those who decide to complain about that because it was “all luck” are most likely poor sports who wouldn’t have the balls in the first place.
Give the man his due, quit trying to cheapen it, and move on. Doing his job with the level of success he met makes it heroic. All the lives were saved. That’s enough.
*golf clap*
Additionally, I might add that someone running into a burning building to save another and succeeding = hero. Putting one’s life in peril for another.
Someone stuck in a sticky spot and doing everything within their power to ensure survival and succeeding = lucky son of a bitch. Life’s already in peril: pull out all the stops.
-
We agree to disagree.
‘Lucky son of a bitch’ and ‘hero’ are not mutually exclusive in this case.
Will you make up your mind if it is skill or luck? You say he just did his job, which is finely honed skill since his feat isn’t often duplicated. Then you denigrate his accomplishment by calling it all dumb luck. Seriously, pick one and stick to it.
A firefighter dashing into a building is doing his job but he can still be a hero because he was effective. A pilot landing as safely as possible is doing his job but can be a hero if all the lives are saved and he does his job super effectively.
I don’t see exactly how anything you say from luck to doing a job demotes his status as a hero for his exceptional accomplishment.
Additional quantifying statement: Hell, a pilot saving over half the lives of the passengers in hellish conditions or in conditions known to kill people can be a hero to the lives still around.
Gimli glider!
Well, there was that situation with the autopilot and the flight that crashed outside Buffalo……
He is a hero.
Avoiding deaths was mostly luck. He didn’t screw up and cause any deaths by making mistakes, which makes him a damned fine pilot and a credit to his profession. That said, any number of things could have happened outside his control to cause deaths. He could have slammed into a boat, or the plane could have come apart despite a perfect landing. Calling this man a hero for a combination of luck and doing their job does a disservice to other pilots who have also done exactly what they are supposed to, yet lost passengers and crew anyway. It also does a disservice to people who had no responsibility for the safety of others, yet ensured it anyway. A good samaritan who runs into a burning building to save someone is a hero. A fireman who does the same is a fireman. One is doing what is expected, indeed, required of him. The other is doing something that is almost guaranteed to be suicide, and is a hero regardless of whether or not they succeed. I’m not saying this man isn’t a great man and I’d certainly feel comfortable if he were flying my plane, but I think we ought to be more selective about the use of hero. Just watch the news and count how many times the term is used on each broadcast.
See above.
I do agree that the term ’sporting hero’ should be expunged from the language.
Being sponsored by Nike and Coke don’t make you a hero, just a lucky jock.
Yeah, getting paid millions to play games isn’t really all that heroic.
Actually I disagree with this. If this is competence and simply doing his job, I wish more airline pilots were like him. A hero is someone who under extraordinary circumstances manages to remain calm and perform extraordinarily. Captain Sullenberger did this. We all would like to believe that we would behave and perform the same way under such pressure, but the reality is that most of us do not. That is why these kinds of stories are so rare.
Um, yer full of it, obviously.
I understand the complaint that we’re calling just about everyone a “hero” these days, but you missed the mark badly here when you claimed that Sully “just did his job”, and worse, when you implied that what he did was no different from a doctor giving a checkup. That’s obviously ridiculous.
You should have put a LOT more thought into this before posting, kid.
You should have done more thinking, too, “kid”. Unfortunately for my liver (and other things) im probably twice your age.
That’d make you pretty damned old.
I thought plenty before posting, thank you. There’s nothing wrong with what I wrote.
You want people to do WHAT? T-H-I-N-K. You some sort of Commie intellectual?
Sadly, incompetence IS the norm now.
I know that if it were me on that plane, I’d refer to him as a hero fo sho.
I think they’re some statistics being thrown around, like how many jets have been able to successfully land on water. Previously, I think the count was 0.
Yea, I think that qualifies this guy for a HERO mantle or two.
“On 16 January 2002, Garuda Indonesia Flight 421 (a Boeing 737) successfully ditched into the Bengawan Solo River near Yogyakarta, Java Island after experiencing a twin engine flameout during heavy precipitation and hail. The pilots tried to restart the engines several times before making the decision to ditch the aircraft. Of the 60 occupants, one flight attendant was killed. The survival rate was 98%.[9] Photographs taken shortly after evacuation show that the plane came to rest in knee-deep water.[10]”
.
There’s more planes-on-water stuff on this wikipedia article.
.
I am not saying this to retract from the Hudson river landing’s good outcome. On the contrary I think exaggerations or erroneous facts retract more from the captain’s heroism (on whatever hero scale you wish to place it).
(And if someone would want to go “Bah, kneedeep water”, there’s another one in that article, about a jet landing on a river in 1963, with no casualties. So yeah, awesome stuff, but not the first. Note that I don’t think that diminishes the Hudson river landing at all.)
Ability to land a screwed plane safely = WIN
ability to screw a landed plane?
mechanic win?
with a ladder, and wang with more callouses than DWN!
>.>
lolwut? I know not of what you speak.
You can fly on my dick big boy.