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

161–170 of 297 posts

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

#161

Post by WalterBright »

aaronmdjones wrote: post #155
snypher wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having handles where they should be at 1000 callout should have been an instant toga party.

That they passed their minimums and still weren't set up correctly is shocking, yes. How can you commit to landing instead of going around when you're not configured for landing? The more egregious thing to me though is ignoring the GPWS callouts on approach because they were chasing the glideslope. If you can't maintain a stable approach, you need to go around, it's the first thing you learn. You expect this behavio…

> You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot.

I'm curious - are commercial pilots reprimanded for doing a go-round after messing up the approach?

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

#162

Post by wavemode »

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.

> They commanded full power 15 seconds before the crash

Not 15 seconds before the crash, 15 seconds before the end of the recording. Then overran the runway 10 seconds before the end of the recording, then started crashing into objects 7 seconds before the end of the recording.

Thrust was reduced back to idle 11 seconds before the end of the recording, so just before departing the runway.

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

#163

Post by gib444 »

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…

I wonder: would PM have taken control if they had more experience on the 767?

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

#164

Post by palmotea »

stackghost wrote: post #133
overfeed wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you comment as if you are knowledgeable enough about aviation to speak on this with authority, but you aren't aware that ... This is par for the course for HN; smart people applying first-principle thinking on unfamiliar domains for about a minute, which confirms the biases of other outsiders who vote the plausible, but not-quite-right comments to the top.

HN is particularly notorious for armchair aviation experts. I am an aerospace engineer having worked in airworthiness & certification as well as maintenance/repair/overhaul on multiple different aircraft types both fixed and rotary. I mention this only to establish my bona fides as someone who knows their shit: The comments here during the 737 MAX MCAS thing were fucking wild. So many randoms spitting out confidently…

> The comments here during the 737 MAX MCAS thing were fucking wild. So many randoms spitting out confidently incorrect nonsense.

Maybe that helps explain some of the fraction of HN that loves LLMs: they found their soulmates.

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

#165

Post by WalterBright »

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…

> no excuses

Airplanes don't pay any attention to excuses. The only way to fly is do it perfectly, every time.

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

#166

Post by arlattimore »

Captain Steeeve’s latest video on this tragedy is shocking, complete disregard for the aviation rules. I think he cited 11 separate instances of __mandatory__ go around, the first of which was before they were anywhere near the runway at 1000ft elevation.

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

#167

Post by aaronmdjones »

WalterBright wrote: post #161
aaronmdjones wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That they passed their minimums and still weren't set up correctly is shocking, yes. How can you commit to landing instead of going around when you're not configured for landing? The more egregious thing to me though is ignoring the GPWS callouts on approach because they were chasing the glideslope. If you can't maintain a stable approach, you need to go around, it's the first thing you learn. You expect this behavio…

> You expect this behaviour from a first-timer in the sim, not a commercial cargo pilot. I'm curious - are commercial pilots reprimanded for doing a go-round after messing up the approach?

No, they're reprimanded for continuing.

https://skybrary.aero/tutorials/stabilised-approach

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

#168

Post by fc417fc802 »

overfeed wrote: post #124
arcfour wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ... This is par for the course for HN; smart people applying first-principle thinking on unfamiliar domains for about a minute, which confirms the biases of other outsiders who vote the plausible, but not-quite-right comments to the top.

This is par for the course for HN; smart people failing to interpret a comment in a charitable light, preferring instead to author a condescending reply in an apparent effort to score imaginary points at the expense of intellectually stimulating conversation.

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

#169

Post by bob1029 »

overfeed wrote: post #124
arcfour wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ... This is par for the course for HN; smart people applying first-principle thinking on unfamiliar domains for about a minute, which confirms the biases of other outsiders who vote the plausible, but not-quite-right comments to the top.

HN = A bunch of weirdly aggressive nerds who fail to explore nuance living in the same prison cell.

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

#170

Post by rantingdemon »

californical wrote: post #158
lovecg wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Rarely works that way. How sure are you? Could it actually happen that way 95% of the time, which means they don’t crash and we never hear about it? Likely a pilot gets disciplined for the other errors and nobody else cares? This exact thing could happen 20 times with everything turning up relatively ok and we only heard about it because they didn’t make that final call correctly either. To be clear I’m not an avia…

This was a discussion in the aviation subreddit too. I am also not an aviator, but just someone with an interest.

What the outcome of the discussion was that it depends on the culture and training of the organisation. It could be possible that it does happen like this 95% of the time with no crash in that specific organisation.

Post reply on HN