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

231–240 of 297 posts

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

#231

Post by madaxe_again »

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…

And just to ice the cake, after they crashed and caught fire, PF jumped out of the window and abandoned PM to burn.

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

#232

Post by zmgsabst »

b112 wrote: post #189
jsmith45 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is this legislated, required policy, or is this something that you believe should be the case? The reason I ask is, case in point, do you think the PM is going to be penalized in some way?

I don’t think it’s required, but my friends who do flights for remote mining operations in SE Asia use the same concepts — so it really is pretty standard for commercial flying, even down to remote private operations.

A bad bump on a commercial plane can be hundreds of thousands to millions in damage + downtime + inspection/repairs. And tens or hundreds of millions if you wreck a big plane. Companies may be evil, but most would still prefer you waste $2k in go around fuel than $200k because you decided to set it down badly or $20M+ because you drove their plane off the runway.

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

#234

Post by throwaway173738 »

tekla wrote: post #226
rbanffy wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't doubt shady operations If there is a company willing to bend rules to increase profits, I'd bet it'd be Amazon's retail side. Not via explicit punishment, because that'd be too easy to catch, but bonuses for timely arrivals, fuel efficiency, and so on.

Provide evidence of any of this, or are you just spreading random fud because you don't like Amazon. Claiming that this company is making Aviation unsafe is a serious accusation, that requires evidence.

Well they tend to optimize heavily by discouraging things like bathroom breaks, and I’ve seen evidence of this thinking in how they treat their drivers. I’m not sure why this would be extraordinary? On its face those incentives don’t sound bad except that they will incentivize unsafe behavior in edge cases like this.

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

#235

Post by vlozko »

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…

> - PM was concerned that the approach/descent was abnormal but kept his mouth shut as the more experienced captain was at the controls (Edit: apparently he did speak up but PF did not acknowledge)

This was exactly what season 2 of The Rehearsal was all about. It also had one of the most jaw-dropping IRL plot twists in its last episode. I highly recommend it.

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

#236

Post by cube00 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #107
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.

That's why there are standards that define when to go around. If you aren't stable, on glide slope, at proper airspeed, and the before-landing checklist complete at 1000 feet, a go-around is mandatory. There's no choice at that point (or should not be).

> That's why there are standards that define when to go around.

Greg Feith covered this well on one of the Mayday episodes, he put an American Airlines' manager on the stand during the NTSB investigation.

What were the company rules for pilots flying near thunderstorms?

When asked the question, he basically responded that he just didn't want his pilots flying into that type of weather. Our pilots are forbidden to enter or depart a terminal area blanketed by thunderstorms.

Well, that's a very subjective call for a pilot. Pilots need boundaries. You have to set limits.

If there's convective activity, that is thunderstorm activity, that's within five nautical miles of the airport, there's lightning, there's wind shear... don't go there.

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

#237

Post by tialaramex »

rob74 wrote: post #191
b112 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this legislated, required policy, or is this something that you believe should be the case? The reason I ask is, case in point, do you think the PM is going to be penalized in some way?

I don't think there's a law mandating it, but CRM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management ) has been used and trained by all major airlines since the 1980s. The reason is simple: it doesn't really help to have two people in the cockpit if only one of them is making all the decisions.

And all Military air forces AFAIK. The military of course also takes rank very seriously, but there was existing understanding that Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about rank and so CRM makes sense in that same practical vein.

Also, you'll see that says "Crew" not just "Cockpit". Turns out that from the cockpit of an airliner you've not always got the best possible view of the problem. If the steward who has no idea how to fly a plane insists it's the right engine that is on fire, her input is valuable, from back where she's serving customers with coffee she can see the engines, the fire is on the right, whereas you're just looking at sensor outputs and you were maybe about to turn off the left engine.

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

#238

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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 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.

You get what you incentivize. The point of the number in the top right is to incentivize. This kind of contribution is what this place is built for.

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

#239

Post by Hobadee »

b112 wrote: post #189
jsmith45 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is this legislated, required policy, or is this something that you believe should be the case? The reason I ask is, case in point, do you think the PM is going to be penalized in some way?

It was instituted after Tenerife where hundreds died because of this exact same problem.

I'm pretty sure it's FAA policy, but not 100% on that.

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

#240

Post by lenerdenator »

Peanuts99 wrote: post #222
lenerdenator wrote: post #122

I know that it's not a luxury that all metro areas can implement, but if you look at airports like Denver or Kansas City, there is a very, very good reason that those airports are out in the middle of nowhere. Lots of accidents happen close to the runway, either on takeoff or landing. It's better that it be in a field than a road or building filled with people.

Isn't this usually because people don't like big jets flying over their houses.

The way this was dealt with historically, for better or for worse, was to put the cheap housing under the flight path. The proles were left to deal with the noise. The Harlem neighborhood of Kansas City North is a good example of this. It sits next to MKC and has a flophouse motel, a car repair shop, and little else.

When aircraft got significantly faster, heavier, and larger with the advent of jet airliners, it became less of a noise issue and more of a safety issue. You can tell people to put up with noise, you can't tell them to put up with a huge airplane falling out of the sky onto their homes.

Post reply on HN