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

41–50 of 297 posts

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

#41

Post by Twirrim »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #34
wanderingmoose wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real question is why didn't the pilots do a go around. I bet there are underlying pressures from the airlines and/or amazon to not do a go around to avoid schedule delays or fuel costs.

[flagged]

The branding on the plane is Prime Air, but it's not actually Amazon owned and run. Instead it's a cargo airline (21 Air) that they contract with to operate cargo flights with Prime Air livery on the planes.

It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the NTSB investigation, they're usually quite thorough.

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

#42

Post by jmward01 »

wanderingmoose wrote: post #14
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.

I think the real question is why didn't the pilots do a go around. I bet there are underlying pressures from the airlines and/or amazon to not do a go around to avoid schedule delays or fuel costs.

I suspect the pilots knew it wasn't a great approach but it just didn't click how bad it was. They just felt committed to the approach and thought they could 'fix it' without realizing how bad things really were. Having good enough situational awareness that you wave off when you are supposed to generally means that you also aren't wildly off speed/other parameters. They clearly had lost situational awareness.

The thing that amazes me about this is the timeline here:

00:30 The nose and right main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots.

...

00:19 The left main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 134 knots.

00:15 A pilot called for a go-around.

11 seconds and 24 knots after the nose touched down and then the left main finally also touched down? Wow. Then 4 seconds after all that the go-around. It is one thing to hold the nose off for that long, but a main mount?!

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

#43

Post by Twirrim »

collabs wrote: post #30
cjbprime wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They made a series of at least ten (and that's kind of charitable) this-must-never-happen mistakes that likely rise to the level of extraordinary criminal negligence, including ignoring checklists, alarms, configuring the plane for landing in general, and basically everything related to safety. You don't have to extend sympathy, just as you don't have to extend sympathy to drunk drivers who kill people.

I am not a pilot and I don't know anything about flying. I can go along with the idea that the pilot / crew made mistakes. So the next obvious question is how do we make sure this does not happen again? Is there anything that can be done at all here?

The NTSB report will detail what can be done, and they will have full access to every bit of information involved in the incident.

They have a well deserved reputation for the quality and accuracy of their incident reports, and they don't pull their punches.

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

#44

Post by waterTanuki »

jtchang wrote: post #40
dghlsakjg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of anything even close to this. Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not. Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain wi…

Southwest airlines had a culture of turning around fast at the gate. So maybe no explicit policy but culture can drive unintended consequences and decisions.

Turnaround at a gate and a life-or-death go-around judgement are two entirely different operations governed by entirely different sections of the FAA.

Also this was Amazon, not Southwest.

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

#45

Post by ElProlactin »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #33
wanderingmoose wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the real question is why didn't the pilots do a go around. I bet there are underlying pressures from the airlines and/or amazon to not do a go around to avoid schedule delays or fuel costs.

I've never heard of anything even close to this. Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not. Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain wi…

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety...

> The Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo plane that crashed off a Miami runway on Sunday, killing five people, was operated by a North Carolina company that has been accused by past employees of violating safety regulations, legal documents reveal.

There's a lot in the article, but this allegation is worth highlighting:

> Seuring's attorney, Michael Anello, told the judge that another 21 Air pilot, Johnny Salmonson, "was being pressured to fly in periods of time that were too short to comply with the proper amounts of rest, and that implicated safety. The layovers were too short."

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

#46

Post by psunavy03 »

Twirrim wrote: post #41
bayarearefugee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The branding on the plane is Prime Air, but it's not actually Amazon owned and run. Instead it's a cargo airline (21 Air) that they contract with to operate cargo flights with Prime Air livery on the planes. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the NTSB investigation, they're usually quite thorough.

CH Robinson, though, just lost a lawsuit at the Supreme Court with similar premises. They are a freight forwarder and third-party logistics outfit that contracts large amounts of capacity with subcontractors (airlines, trucking companies, shipping lines, etc.) and sells a complete package to their clients.

One of CHR's service providers was conducting hiring shenanigans and not fully, legally screening their drivers. One of the service provider's drivers hit another vehicle and crippled that vehicle's driver, who sued. CHR argued all liability should fall on the trucking company who hired the driver. The Supreme Court said no, CHR could be held liable for negligence in vetting their service provider as well, because it was ultimately CHR's load being carried.

I'm not a lawyer, but under that legal precedent, it seems Amazon might not be off the hook for damages in this case, given it was their subcontractor who was carrying Amazon cargo in a jet with "Prime Air" on the side.

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

#47

Post by baggy_trough »

cjbprime wrote: post #35
collabs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a pilot and I don't know anything about flying. I can go along with the idea that the pilot / crew made mistakes. So the next obvious question is how do we make sure this does not happen again? Is there anything that can be done at all here?

Maybe ATC could be expected to revoke landing clearance on extremely obviously unstable approaches? I wonder why that didn't happen.

You can't be serious.

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

#48

Post by dghlsakjg »

jtchang wrote: post #40
dghlsakjg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of anything even close to this. Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not. Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain wi…

Southwest airlines had a culture of turning around fast at the gate. So maybe no explicit policy but culture can drive unintended consequences and decisions.

Fast gate turnarounds have nothing to do with what happens in the cockpit. That affects the cleaning crews.

Take a look at Southwest's safety record. I believe they have 1 fatality due to an air incident in their history due to an uncontained engine failure that was not related to maintenance.

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

#49

Post by baggy_trough »

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.

Obligatory Blancolirio link: https://youtu.be/dcf7n0T3D9c

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

#50

Post by sxde »

waterTanuki wrote: post #44
jtchang wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Southwest airlines had a culture of turning around fast at the gate. So maybe no explicit policy but culture can drive unintended consequences and decisions.

Turnaround at a gate and a life-or-death go-around judgement are two entirely different operations governed by entirely different sections of the FAA. Also this was Amazon, not Southwest.

I think the point being made is that time-pressure can come from a company's culture, not just its (unspoken) policies.
Post reply on HN