Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

ntsb.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 297 posts

Re: NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

#3

Post by bdamm »

imglorp wrote: post #2

tldw, per Blancolirio: unstable approach, crew should have done a go around at 1000 agl but did not attempt one until it was too late, then aborted the go around.

The "hazardous attitudes" study in this report will be gold.

Re: NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

#4

Post by bradly »

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed.

I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful.

Re: NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

#5

Post by Onavo »

bradly wrote: post #4

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful.

Depending on the plane they need the wheels to have sufficient weight on them first. Also strangely the flaps 30 and flaps 40 call outs do not match.

Re: NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

#7

Post by ofcrpls »

bradly wrote: post #4

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful.

The lack of contact of the left wheels on the ground, which the Weight of Wheel sensor deployment depends on, as in both wheels being grounded, which the auto-speed brakes/thrust reversers depend on, worsened the whole situation as the crew seems to be unaware why they weren't losing speed after they'd 'landed'.

Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did.

Re: NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

#8

Post by addaon »

bradly wrote: post #4

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful.

Take this with all the salt that random third-party guesses about a still-in-investigation event should be taken with -- think fully salt-cured ham -- but it looks like the landing was with a quartering tail wind, and the upwind (left) gear never really got weight on it; the wheel bogie needs to be straightened by weight against both the front and back wheels to register weight-on-wheel, and the auto-brake systems need positive weight-on-wheels from at least one redundant sensor on each of the three gear to engage. Came down hot, and basically skimmed with one wheel partially off the ground for some, most, or all of the way down the runway, preventing the braking systems from kicking in.

Re: NTSB issues investigative update on B-767 runway excursion accident in Miami

#9

Post by lokar »

addaon wrote: post #8
bradly wrote: post #4

> There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful.

Take this with all the salt that random third-party guesses about a still-in-investigation event should be taken with -- think fully salt-cured ham -- but it looks like the landing was with a quartering tail wind, and the upwind (left) gear never really got weight on it; the wheel bogie needs to be straightened by weight against both the front and back wheels to register weight-on-wheel, and the auto-brake systems ne…

AIUI, they should never have gotten that far. They should have gone around at 1000 feet.
Post reply on HN