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

211–220 of 297 posts

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

#211

Post by pluc »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #174
gib444 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't be a case of "if I fix it then there was nothing wrong"? How do you, as an inferior rank, step in to correct something that you think is going to happen? Imagine the inferior officer steps in and lands the plane, wouldn't the superior officer say well duh that's what I was doing why did you intervene? It's an interesting conundrum, I think, and may exacerbate the reaction or lack thereof..

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

#212

Post by AdamN »

rob74 wrote: post #190
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…

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's one of those situations where any one risk not occurring probably would have ended up with no excursion but all risks present at the same time made this outcome.

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

#213

Post by AdamN »

arcfour wrote: post #106
eh_why_not wrote: post #65

So many mistakes. A notable part is this: >> CVR: 00:15 A pilot called for a go-around. >> FDR: 00:15 Brakes were released at a groundspeed of 120 knots and throttles were increased to a value consistent with go-around thrust. >> FDR: 00:11 The throttles were reduced to idle power and the brakes were re-applied. The groundspeed was 117 knots. The throttles remained at idle, and brakes remained applied until the end o…

> 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…

We're not jurors or NTSB investigators - this is just a public messageboard on a tech-focused platform. It's totally fine to speculate and wonder here ... and to be corrected respectfully.

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

#214

Post by detourdog »

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…

This seems like a no win situation for the subordinate pilot. Grabbing the wheel of an aircraft while landing must have its own set of risks. We also only hear about the times when the subordinate pilot didn’t prevent a crash. Never hear about the times they were mistaken and did nothing.

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

#215

Post by detourdog »

kashunstva wrote: post #184

The details of course matter; but the overarching principle put on stark display here is that if you don’t meet stabilized approach criteria (on-speed, on-glidepath, minimal necessary flight control deflections) at the 1000 ft AGL gate, go around. Yes grey areas exist but this approach never became stabilized. The whole approach was a missed opportunity to go around. I am a pilot; and although I don’t fly large trans…

If there are factors that need to be met it seems like a red indicator light should trigger a go around.

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

#216

Post by rbanffy »

outworlder wrote: post #147
dylan604 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do companies punish pilots for go arounds for costing them fuel and delays? If not outright punished, does it cost them in potential promotion/raises? Do they look into a go around enough to determine cause or are all go arounds assumed pilot error by the company?

This should not be the case for any modern airline; too many accidents were caused by exactly this problem in the past. However, I don't doubt shady operations might be doing this(more so if they aren't carrying passengers). They won't be around for long if they are caught doing this kind of nonsense and it causes an incident (or accident in this case). Today there may be some rules (more than X go arounds because of…

> 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.

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

#217

Post by rbanffy »

loeg wrote: post #96
cyanydeez wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capitalism caused this crash"

Ah, yes, the Soviets never took risks. It couldn't be that humans are fallible.

If there was pressure to arrive quickly (hence the high airspeed) or not do a go-around for whatever profit-related reasons, then I would say need to profit was involved in the decision making process that led to this.

When you take resource consumption out of the equation, you are more free to make lower-risk decisions.

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

#219

Post by rbanffy »

xenadu02 wrote: post #78
mandeepj wrote: post #73

The NTSB confirmed that while the pilot applied the physical wheel brakes, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) showed zero evidence that the speed brakes/spoilers ever extended. They also overshot the runway; I think those were the key mistakes that caused the accident. https://www.wisn.com/article/amazon-cargo-plane-black-box-mi...

No, the left main was not on the ground after touchdown for some time. The aircraft will not auto-deploy the spoilers nor autobrake until it senses weight on weels. It also locks out the thrust reversers. All for obvious reasons. The left wing was lifting because they came in way too fast. 30-40 knots above final approach speed. That's why they landed so flat - if they had assumed correct flare AoA the airplane would…

> The aircraft will not auto-deploy the spoilers nor autobrake until it senses weight on weels. It also locks out the thrust reversers. All for obvious reasons.

While I agree the obvious course of action would be a go-around, a manual override for when you know doing the stupid thing is the least unsafe thing to do would be handy.

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

#220

Post by mrngld »

ibejoeb wrote: post #197
gib444 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The PM got his rating about 18 months ago. The PF only got his this past May. The PM had more overall hours, but this is looking a lot like a skills issue. He was flying an unstable approach. He wasn't configured for landing. This pairing, considering past incidents with similar airframe vs. total hours disparity, really does look to be bad practice. You've got to acknowledge the human psychology. Part of it is proba…

I really don't think time in this particular type is a factor. None of what I've heard or read has anything to do with familiarity with its unique systems. Everything sounds like sloppy flying. Sounds like he, the PF/PIC/Captain, started the descent late, stayed too high, didn't manage the power curve well, landed long and fast and willfully ignored his first officer. One bad decision after another where instead of properly correcting it or making the safe decision to try again he decided to plow onwards.

The training pilots go through to get type rated and to be allowed to fly by airlines is incredible. But knowledge is one thing, attitudes and behavior and truly taking safety to heart outside the sim is another. I bet this guy was slightly reckless in every model he's flown.

Another alternative is external social factors acting on the captain. Maybe he was distracted by personal issues. There again though, if you're not fit to fly that day, you call out.

Post reply on HN