That's no different for the pilot at that moment, you fly the airplane exactly the same. Loss of pressure is trained for too - a lot. What happened here is remarkable but that does not play a role for flying, more for what happens after landing (for example, the whole world covering the incident...).

I'm a measly PP-ASEL and while I applaud the captain all the "hero" and especially the "only a fighter jet pilot could do this" articles are ridiculous.

>That's no different for the pilot at that moment, you fly the airplane exactly the same.

Disagree — I find it hard to believe the flight characteristics wouldn't change with this level of leading edge damage: https://i.imgur.com/aEWw6UG.png

(On the other hand, compensating with more right rudder! won't feel too unusual!)

>Loss of pressure is trained for too - a lot.

Agreed. But the two together compounds the problem and makes it a more dangerous situation that's trained for less.

>What happened here is remarkable but that does not play a role for flying, more for what happens after landing (for example, the whole world covering the incident...).

Well, not exactly. Loss of pressure would prompt the pilot to dive to breathable altitudes, the rate of which might really matter given what we've seen of passengers wearing oxygen masks improperly. A slower rate of dive might have resulted in some real injuries from hypoxia. (That said, it seems like a higher rate than the performed 3000 fpm might have been justified.)

>I'm a measly PP-ASEL and while I applaud the captain all the "hero" and especially the "only a fighter jet pilot could do this" articles are ridiculous.

Same, and agreed. Did the pilot do her job as described? Yes. Could a lot of people have died if she hadn't properly followed procedure? Definitely. Did she go above and beyond and pull off a near-impossible feat like US1549? Probably not, but there probably wasn't anything above and beyond that could be done — following procedure and training was the right move.

Does that make you a hero? That just depends on your definition. Certainly she's as much of a 'hero' as the fireman who saves people from a burning building, as his job specifies.

> and makes it a more dangerous situation

I would say that that is not the point though. More dangerous, more spectacular - what matters is that you have to fly the airplane. Whether the situation is more dangerous does not directly influence the flight characteristics, that's "meta", something you can think about later on the ground, "Wow, we were sooo close! If that piece had hit a few inches further left... or if xyz had also happened...".

> Does that make you a hero?

I don't really mind that question as such - but the hero worship that happens, which is so mindless. It feels all fake, like theater, like the media does it following an established procedure, unthinking. Are you a "hero" for being competent? I would have thought that word has an element of volunteering, going into danger when you don't have to (plus also being competent, i.e. succeeding).

> I'm a measly PP-ASEL and while I applaud the captain all the "hero" and especially the "only a fighter jet pilot could do this" articles are ridiculous.

I'm not yet an expert in any field, but given the number of times I hear something on the news containing lacklustre research/reporting (including from reputable organisations), none of this surprises me. I'd go as far to guess that nearly everything covered with publication deadline has quite a few major errors or omissions. I'm not suggesting that the stories are "false" per se but more that they're usually superficial since organisations think most of the audience aren't experts and therefore don't care.

I don't get my aviation news from the news but on the other hand, the general public don't care about aviation news enough to follow what we follow.

Superficially reminiscent of QF32, although that one didn't result in a cabin breach or any injuries - the wing did cop a fair bit though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32