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

Post by wolvoleo » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 3:04 AM UTC

stouset wrote: post #31

psunavy03 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted because actual qualified aviators are telling you how egregious of a mistake this looks to be, and you're quibbling with them without any professional credibility on the subject. Sincerely, A former military aviator

In any aviation incident, it’s generally a good idea to wait for the full NTSB report before drawing any firm conclusions. That said, it is exceedingly difficult to find any explanation for what happened in this case that doesn’t boil down to incompetence or gross negligence. There were so many opportunities to avoid this accident. The crew seemingly more or less single-handedly punched a hole straight through the en…

Post by dghlsakjg » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 3:16 AM UTC

wolvoleo wrote: post #120

dghlsakjg wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get-there-itis is - quite famously - a pilot's internal desire (note: written before your ninja edit). Sure there have been plenty of incidents. Can you point to one in the US, with pilots flying big planes, that hasn't led to regulatory change? Its worth pointing out that pilots are almost always paid by flight hour. In other words, they get paid more to go around.

The worst aviation accident ever had this as a major contributing factor, the KLM plane at Tenerife was almost near their maximum crew time so if they didn't take off soon they'd have to stay overnight. That one did lead to major regulatory changes. It wasn't in the US though but there was an American plane involved (which was not to blame)

Post by loeg » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 3:24 AM UTC

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #101

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…

> But they made the wrong choices at all of those points. This tends to be something we see in most incidents, because the cases where someone makes the right choice at one of the points tend to not become incidents. An interesting thought is that the more obviously bad/incompetent/terrible decisions or (in)actions were involved in an incident, the better it is, because it means more things had to go wrong for a disa…

Post by schrectacular » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 3:35 AM UTC

wanderingmoose wrote: post #14

imglorp wrote: post #2

tldw, per Blancolirio: unstable approach, crew should have done a go around at 1000 agl but did not attempt one until it was too late, then aborted the go around.

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.

Post by fiatpandas » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 3:47 AM UTC