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

251–260 of 297 posts

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

#251

Post by [deleted] »

madaxe_again wrote: post #231
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.

[deleted]

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

#252

Post by anonymars »

drillsteps5 wrote: post #247
rob74 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more thing worth noting is that they flew through bad weather on the approach, which led to the deviation from the glideslope. But the actual issue IMHO is not going around when they noticed that the approach was wildly unstable, or at the latest when they noticed that they were going to touch down with very little runway left.

It wasn't bad weather. Captain was going way too fast to begin with, and started descent later than needed. So he needed to catch up with the glide/descent slope by making the plane descend faster. Thus gaining even more speed. He still arrived too late (overshot the beginning of the runway), with higher speed (I think 30 kts over the limit) and not configured (flaps not down). It was really, really, really sloppy ap…

There's even a song!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ccq30minme8

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

#253

Post by arcfour »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #183
_moof wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turbofans being slow to spool up is jets 101.

So presumably OP never took jets 101. Neither have I. So what? The condescension remains unjustified and contrary to fruitful interaction. (See also the "lucky 10000" xkcd.)

Does any combustion engine, like the one in your car, have instant throttle response? When you hit the kickdown switch in your car there is still a delay before you start really accelerating. Now imagine a much bigger engine - it's not very difficult to guess one of those would take even longer without being familiar with the inner workings of turbine engines.

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

#254

Post by skullone »

dboreham wrote: post #152
Animats wrote: post #128

Not enough info yet. Clearly they landed too fast, but why? Was there some problem on approach which caused a fast landing? NTSB hasn't gotten to that part yet. From the timeline, one pilot knew they were too fast 90 seconds before touchdown.

From the videos there was some serious weather in the area. Also the aircraft was very light.

Serious weather? Ehhh...

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

#255

Post by DiggyJohnson »

drillsteps5 wrote: post #247
rob74 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more thing worth noting is that they flew through bad weather on the approach, which led to the deviation from the glideslope. But the actual issue IMHO is not going around when they noticed that the approach was wildly unstable, or at the latest when they noticed that they were going to touch down with very little runway left.

It wasn't bad weather. Captain was going way too fast to begin with, and started descent later than needed. So he needed to catch up with the glide/descent slope by making the plane descend faster. Thus gaining even more speed. He still arrived too late (overshot the beginning of the runway), with higher speed (I think 30 kts over the limit) and not configured (flaps not down). It was really, really, really sloppy ap…

There was clearly bad weather in the area. What you said is just tangentially related facts.

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

#256

Post by mitxela »

bell-cot wrote: post #205
mitxela wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about the same company that forces its employees to piss in bottles while driving to save time.

I'm no Amazon fan, but that was routine in trucking before Bezos was even born. Similar to farmers working in the fields - they didn't walk all the way back to the farmhouse if they had to pee.

It's not their choice though, they have to. I wouldn't care much if they chose to.

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

#257

Post by rootbear »

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…

A pilot friend once told me that the Tenerife crash was a turning point for this sort of thing. I believe that was the origin of CRM training.

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

#258

Post by kayodelycaon »

tekla wrote: post #245
throwaway173738 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think delivery driver stuff is any way comparable to aviation? Do you have evidence of pilots being forced to do unsafe things?

I think it matters a lot because Amazon doesn’t have their own airline. They contract out their aviation to multiple companies.

The incentive is to pick the lowest bid and that could be a company whose culture creates indirect pressure on pilots to be on time. All it takes is a dispatcher in a small company that is constantly irritated when things are late. Knowing that the other people are going to be angry with you for being late can make you hesitant to go around, causing exactly this type of accident.

Is this what happened? Probably not. Pilots get tunnel vision for any number of reasons.

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

#259

Post by rconti »

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…

IANAP but it's hard to imagine that the many mistakes the Pilot Flying apparently made were related to unfamiliarity with the type. They just all seem so, so, so basic.

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

#260

Post by buildsjets »

throw1923847 wrote: post #85
myself248 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll see if the NTSB mentions piss bottles in the cabin.

I don't really see how it's possible since the plane probably has a lavatory for the pilots.

It costs money to have a contractor service the lavatory waste tank after every flight.

Since the lavatory is not on the Minimum Equipment List, it would cost 30 minutes of paperwork to update the maintenance log and declare it inoperative.

Depends on how much of a psychopath the person doing the cost-benefit analysis is I suppose.

Post reply on HN