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

91–100 of 297 posts

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

#91

Post by phire »

xenadu02 wrote: post #81
eh_why_not wrote: post #65

So many mistakes. A notable part is this: >> CVR: 00:15 A pilot called for a go-around. >> FDR: 00:15 Brakes were released at a groundspeed of 120 knots and throttles were increased to a value consistent with go-around thrust. >> FDR: 00:11 The throttles were reduced to idle power and the brakes were re-applied. The groundspeed was 117 knots. The throttles remained at idle, and brakes remained applied until the end o…

Spool up time is 8-10s on high-bypass turbofan engines. They tried to go around maybe 1000ft from the end of the runway? It was far far too late to even try it at that point. Sadly if they had made the call earlier they were going so fast they were basically at rotation speed when they touched down so could have just pulled back and gotten into the air. They landed flat (and the left wing refused to come down) becaus…

Isn’t there a regulation for idle to full go-around thrust in a maximum of 8 seconds?

If so, it’s tight… but i feel like they should have made it if they had stuck to that plan. They commanded full power 15 seconds before the crash, and were pretty close to (if not slightly above) their stall speed (depends on load). I suspect they just needed another 10-20 knots and enough energy to climb.

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

#92

Post by loeg »

mandeepj wrote: post #73

The NTSB confirmed that while the pilot applied the physical wheel brakes, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) showed zero evidence that the speed brakes/spoilers ever extended. They also overshot the runway; I think those were the key mistakes that caused the accident. https://www.wisn.com/article/amazon-cargo-plane-black-box-mi...

No, this stuff is all downstream of their terrible earlier decisions.

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

#93

Post by loeg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #66
lokar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> They should have gone around at 1000 feet They hit the ground at 158 knots. 767-300ER rotates at 130 to 160 knots. Given it had burned through its fuel, at the moment they touched down they could have immediately taken back off and gone around. Given the pilots braked at 146 kts, released at 120 kts to throttle up for G-A, then four seconds later ditched the G-A and re-applied brakes, this sounds like they got stuc…

They were in a bad situation long before they touched the ground and should have gone around even earlier.

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

#94

Post by loeg »

randerson wrote: post #32
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.

In one of the videos you can see dark clouds behind the plane. I suspect the pilots knew they'd have to divert to a different airport if they couldn't land and put pressure on themselves to not have to do that.

You can go around and try again at the same airport long before you have to divert.

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

#95

Post by loeg »

jmward01 wrote: post #42
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 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 th…

How did they ignore the descent rate and speed? They were absolutely diving at the ground. It's just such an elementary mistake.

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

#96

Post by loeg »

cyanydeez wrote: post #23
bdamm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Capitalism caused this crash"

Ah, yes, the Soviets never took risks. It couldn't be that humans are fallible.

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

#97

Post by cyberrock »

Looking at it from the glass-half-full perspective, I'm impressed that pilots declare go-around as often as they do. As someone who sometimes can't decide whether I should declare a production incident (even if it's not my change), I wonder if it's possible to learn that decisiveness.

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

loeg wrote: post #89
eh_why_not wrote: post #65

So many mistakes. A notable part is this: >> CVR: 00:15 A pilot called for a go-around. >> FDR: 00:15 Brakes were released at a groundspeed of 120 knots and throttles were increased to a value consistent with go-around thrust. >> FDR: 00:11 The throttles were reduced to idle power and the brakes were re-applied. The groundspeed was 117 knots. The throttles remained at idle, and brakes remained applied until the end o…

The go-around decision was far too late. Remember the engines need significant time to spool up. The decision to cancel the go-around was correct (conditional on the preceding series of terrible decisions).

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by dmazzoni »

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.

This is based on my understanding from several pilots who have weighted in.

The cockpit voice recorder transcript has the copilot repeatedly saying "we're coming in too fast" but the pilot never clearly acknolwedges.

The copilot ought to have been more assertive and said "We need to go around. NOW."

The pilot shouldn't have needed that. He should have made the call himself, but even if he was unsure, once his copilot called that he should have done the right thing.

Neither of them will ever fly again. The only question now is if either of them will go to prison. There's already a civil wrongful death lawsuit against them.

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

#100

Post by labcomputer »

loeg wrote: post #90
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While they were still late in calling a go-around (they should have done it before being anywhere close to touching down due to their unstable approach) Barring a massive tailwind, they had enough groundspeed to go around at touchdown (158 kts). I think we'll find throttling to G-A and then aborting the G-A caused the crash. If they'd committed to landing they at least wouldn't have overshot with that much energy.…

They didn't have much runway left at 00:15 and were far slower than 158 at that point. They came in far too fast, descending too rapidly; first touch was >50% down the runway, and they didn't get the left gear down, so the spoilers and brakes didn't apply until even later. Should have had a better approach; should have gone around before they even touched the ground; conditional on the bad approach and first touch, t…

Yea, they couldn’t get the left gear down because they they had enough airspeed to execute a go-around!

Literally 5 consecutive minutes of making 100s of wrong decisions snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

According to news reports, a magistrate judge at OSHA has been sandbagging an investigation into retaliatory firings by this airline (of pilots who reported unsafe practices with maintenance, CRM, training, scheduling, everything). I wonder if the NTSB will include that judge in the investigation. It seems like he or she has a lot to answer for.

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

Post reply on HN