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

141–150 of 297 posts

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

#141

Post by drillsteps5 »

bentcorner wrote: post #67
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.

Someone who flew this exact airframe wrote that this plane "likes to float when empty, so if you’re not firm with putting it down, especially with those winds, it’ll just keep floating in ground effect." https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1w9jsrb/put_toget... I'm not a pilot but from my understanding there's a lot of failsafes to ensure things that slow the plane down only trigger when the plane is actually o…

The prevailing opinion on PPRuNe is that the approach was totally botched from many miles out and the touchdown should never have been attempted (many participants there are professional pilots). There might have been a gust of wing as they were about to touch down, but they were also way too fast and lowered the flaps very late, literally as they crossed the runway threshold, causing extra float due to ground effect.

The pilot flying appears to have been dead set on landing on the first try no matter the cost and the first officer did not intervene as he should have.

They got incredibly lucky and both survived, however likely will never be behind the controls ever again.

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

#142

Post by eh_why_not »

arcfour wrote: post #106
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…

> unclear how speed didn't increase How can you comment as if you are knowledgeable enough about aviation to speak on this with authority, but you aren't aware that turbofan engines don't have instant throttle response and need time (up to 8 seconds) to spool up? I think a little more restraint is warranted in something like this if you don't know something that basic. You can actually do the math to work backwards a…

> How can you comment as if you are knowledgeable enough about aviation to speak on this with authority, but you aren't aware that turbofan engines don't have instant throttle response and need time (up to 8 seconds) to spool up? I think a little more restraint is warranted in something like this if you don't know something that basic.

I'm a pilot, and I don't fly turbofans/jets. Not claiming any "authority", but qualified to comment... It's not "something that basic" unless you fly in that category, there's a lot more to aviation experience than knowing a fact about an engine you don't use. (But hey, congrats to you that you know it!)

> I think a little more restraint is warranted in something like this..

More restraint than saying "unclear why ...", an exact statement about what I didn't know, which harms no one and led to several informative explanations by people who know (most of them in good spirit)?

This is what good conversation is about.

...

Anyway, the point I was making holds and is this:

Orthogonal to whether they could/should have gone around at that point, and given that they stayed on the ground after all, it may turn out that that 4 seconds of indecision (instead of pure deceleration) may have directly contributed to the fatalities at the end of the crash.

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

#143

Post by outworlder »

fiatpandas wrote: post #129

>A pilot called for flaps to be set to 20 degrees, and the other pilot cautioned they were too fast. The other pilot made additional comments regarding the aircraft’s excessive speed throughout the remainder of the recording. There was not a consistent verbal response to the comments about speed. Wow, The Rehearsal season 2 flashbacks. Although the show was mostly pure absurdity, the central claim of crisis in cockpit…

> lack of adequate FAA mandated training around interpersonal dynamics

Generally, that's under the 'crew resource management' umbrella.

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

#144

Post by t0mas88 »

dylan604 wrote: post #117
psunavy03 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did fly jets, although not transport-class ones. Just to hammer home that everything here is correct, and the common thread through all aircraft types is disciplined execution. You fly an approach on airspeed and/or angle of attack, and on glideslope. Period. You're either there or you're correcting to get there, and you're correcting at a point that you don't need huge oh-my-God corrections in close. If you can't do…

Do companies punish pilots for go arounds for costing them fuel and delays? If not outright punished, does it cost them in potential promotion/raises? Do they look into a go around enough to determine cause or are all go arounds assumed pilot error by the company?

No, a go around is not a pilot error and it's not punished.

It's almost the opposite. There is automatic monitoring for stable approach criteria (simplified: you must be at speed X with flaps selected etc by altitude Y). So this example would cause an automatic report from the aircraft to the airline, because they were too fast (not within stable approach criteria) and still continued the approach instead of going around.

However even in those cases it's not meant for punishment but for safety improvement. In most professional operations these reports are made anonymous, and only for example someone from a union committee gets to know who the crew were and could have a talk with them if necessary.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

jsmith45 wrote: post #136
drillsteps5 wrote: post #126

A few observations to add context (partially stolen from PPRuNe): - Pilot Flying (PF) was the Captain, 55 yo (presumably) more experienced pilot, who only got certified to fly that type (B767) in May - Pilot Monitoring (PM) was a 38 yo first officer, also not very experienced on B767 - PF made a number of mistakes, going too high, too fast (partially because he was descending too fast), not catching the glidescope on…

This is the spitting image of old pre-CRM thinking: If I try to force the captain to go around, (or follow procedures or whatever), then i am exceeding my authority and will probably be fired. Some cultures have this sort of mentality a lot stronger than others, and it has zero place in the modern cockpit. While a captain can pull rank, they really should only ever do it with respect to the first officer if: an inexp…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by brudgers »

psunavy03 wrote: post #105
phire wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact they were even in that situation is only worth philosophizing about to a point. Because they were only in that situation due to what appears to be a series of totally unacceptable decisions that got them there. Based on everything that's come out, I'm comfortable saying as a former military aviator that in my opinion, this crash happened due to a complete failure of airmanship on the part of both crew member…

At 100,000ft the pilot is just another Amazon delivery driver.

And the other pilot is another Amazon driver riding shotgun as required by law.

“As required by law” is a synonym for “as bad as is still legal.”

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

#147

Post by outworlder »

dylan604 wrote: post #117
psunavy03 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did fly jets, although not transport-class ones. Just to hammer home that everything here is correct, and the common thread through all aircraft types is disciplined execution. You fly an approach on airspeed and/or angle of attack, and on glideslope. Period. You're either there or you're correcting to get there, and you're correcting at a point that you don't need huge oh-my-God corrections in close. If you can't do…

Do companies punish pilots for go arounds for costing them fuel and delays? If not outright punished, does it cost them in potential promotion/raises? Do they look into a go around enough to determine cause or are all go arounds assumed pilot error by the company?

This should not be the case for any modern airline; too many accidents were caused by exactly this problem in the past.

However, I don't doubt shady operations might be doing this(more so if they aren't carrying passengers). They won't be around for long if they are caught doing this kind of nonsense and it causes an incident (or accident in this case).

Today there may be some rules (more than X go arounds because of weather, you have to divert, etc).

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

#148

Post by lovecg »

phire wrote: post #91
xenadu02 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re imagining a last minute perfectly executed response after what appears to be a series of gross errors of judgement. Rarely works that way.

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

#149

Post by outworlder »

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.

> I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal?

Not deploying thrust reversers is normal, not all situations require them. But brakes are terrible when the wings are still flying, so spoilers (if armed as they should) automatically deploy when all wheel sensors report the aircraft is on the ground, so that there will be more weight on the wheels and the brakes can work properly.

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

#150

Post by outworlder »

cyberrock wrote: post #97

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.

> I wonder if it's possible to learn that decisiveness.

If the culture allows for it, yes.

On final my instructor was talking about the next approach. I heard the words 'go around' and immediately executed one. He realized that (1) that conversation was unnecessary at that phase of the flight and (2) to not use those words unless he wants me to immediately go around :)

After soloing, I sometimes report that I had to go around because I didn't like how the approach or landing was looking like. I got praised for it every time.

So yes, it's all culture.

Post reply on HN