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

171–180 of 297 posts

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

#171

Post by JumpCrisscross »

loeg wrote: post #93
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Totally agree. I'm pointing out that they had multiple moments after their mistakes to correct course, possibly down to the point when one of the pilots annunciates G-A (00:15, which is–agreed–late for that to come up for the first time).

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

#172

Post by JumpCrisscross »

labcomputer wrote: post #100
loeg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Do we have a name for the judge?

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

#173

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> They didn't have much runway left at 00:15 and were far slower than 158 at that point

You're correct. When they first annunciate G-A, they've missed the chance. (They almost certainly had enough airspeed to G-A even after touching down, though.)

My question is whether throttling up for G-A at 00:15 is what caused the overshoot to extend out of the airport (versus if they'd committed to braking). This will come down to runway conditions, braking performance and the throttle responsse of their engines.

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

#174

Post by VBprogrammer »

gib444 wrote: post #163
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?

Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants. The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction, the human factors behind why it didn't will probably feature prominently in the post-accident actions.

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

#175

Post by arcfour »

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 might have to say why they went around but they can't be punished for it (that's a great way to open yourself up to liability even stripping away all of the human elements). And I can't imagine any reason that an airline would truly care since they don't want their planes crashing so they don't want to discourage pilots from going around if they need to do so. The delay incurred is usually fairly small anyways, maybe 20-30 minutes.

However I will say that the majority of unstable approaches (97%!!) do continue to landing: https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Go-aroun...

...but I think that most of these unstable approaches are likely marginally unstable and only in one dimension. This landing was so far outside the realm of normal it's actually mind boggling that it actually happened. Pilots are trained to immediately go around without questioning it if many of the things that happened on this flight occur (such as not being in landing configuration well before touching down!)

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

#176

Post by 7952 »

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…

Go arounds are not even very common (like 0.3% of landings).

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

#177

Post by fc417fc802 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #173
loeg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They didn't have much runway left at 00:15 and were far slower than 158 at that point You're correct. When they first annunciate G-A, they've missed the chance. (They almost certainly had enough airspeed to G-A even after touching down, though.) My question is whether throttling up for G-A at 00:15 is what caused the overshoot to extend out of the airport (versus if they'd committed to braking). This will come down…

> This will come down to runway conditions, braking performance and the throttle responsse of their engines.

Well also, at what time point did all the tires finally make simultaneous firm contact with the ground? Ie were they going slow enough for braking performance to even matter?

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

#178

Post by 7952 »

whycome wrote: post #64
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…

There have already been crashes where one contributing factor was pressure to land and avoid any kind of delay - even if risky. Remember that pressure doesn’t need to be explicit. It can be the result of all kinds of factors - including physical. Maybe they were already late and pilots with fewer “on time” arrivals are lower in line for promotions. We already have stories from Amazon delivery drivers and it’s not ins…

And high levels of stress can lead people to break rules. People lose the cognitive faculties needed for compliance. Even things that person personally believes and agrees with.

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

#179

Post by JauntyHatAngle »

arlattimore wrote: post #166

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.

He may or may not be right here, but captain steeeve has a bad track record of baseless claims and/or bad speculation and is not a good reference due to his past failings.

I would not be referencing him as a good source.

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

#180

Post by _moof »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #168
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.

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.

Turbofans being slow to spool up is jets 101.
Post reply on HN