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

51–60 of 297 posts

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

#51

Post by cucumber3732842 »

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…

>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,

Construction companies in the US do not pressure employees to get shit done. Construction workers do not delegate the decisions to work in sketchy circumstances, especially since OSHA holds them accountable for all that.

See how silly that sounds?

They cook up the rules to be all compliant and whatnot and then everyone breaks them a little pretty often and in tasteful ways in order to actually get the job done. If you get caught or screw up, it's on you.

I assume this sort of pressure happens a lot less with pilots because of the cost of screw ups but there's still probably some implied pressure there.

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

#52

Post by dghlsakjg »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #51
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…

>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, Construction companies in the US do not pressure employees to get shit done. Construction workers do not delegate the decisions to work in sketchy circumstances, especially since OSHA holds them accountable for all that. See how silly that sounds? They cook up the rules to be all compliant…

The only thing silly is comparing the construction industry to the airline industry. Construction is pretty notorious for openly encouraging unsafe work environments, airlines are not.

Airlines are much more tightly bound by the FAA than any construction company is to any regulatory agency. Airlines have to get permission to let their pilots read documents off an iPad instead of paper, for example. It just isn't a good comparison to compare the most safety aware industry on earth to one famous for ignoring safety rules.

I've worked construction. I have a pilots license in multiple countries (including the US). They aren't the same.

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

#53

Post by Ancapistani »

lisper wrote: post #18
sscaryterry wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, its also the most intuitive way to reason about it when you look at the data. Unfortunately, a bad call. I'm sure many of us would have made the same mistake.

Private pilot here. No, I'm quite sure very few of you here would have made the same mistake as evidenced by the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of aircraft land successfully every day, many of them under much more adverse conditions. This is not a oh-it-could-have-happened-to-anyone kind of screwup, this is a did-this-guy-really-go-through-basic-pilot-training kind of screwup.

I’m not a manned pilot, but have my part 107 and have spent a few thousand hours flying combat flight sims - ~150kts in a cargo aircraft, four seconds from departing the runway, seems like the worst possible time to abort a touch-and-go. Then consider the numerous automated audio warnings and the copilot suggesting a go-around, and it seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Don’t get me wrong - if I had to land that plane, I’d likely have overrun the runway too. I’m not saying it’s easy, only that it appears to me that they were operating well outside the documented parameters that are the pilot’s responsibility to know.

I just looked it up, and a 767’s Vref is 122-165kts, with Vref at max weight at 144kts. They touched down at 158kts, nose down. The approach was ~35kts over speed, they were above the glide slope, and not bleeding speed fast enough to sink - so they dropped the nose.

From what I can see, they were screwed the moment they touched down - the last moment they had a reasonable opportunity to abort was when they decided to drop the nose and commit instead.

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

#55

Post by waterTanuki »

> [01:42] A pilot called for flaps to be set to 20 degrees, and the other pilot cautioned they were too fast. The other pilot made additional comments regarding the aircraft’s excessive speed throughout the remainder of the recording. There was not a consistent verbal response to the comments about speed

The interaction here is eerily similar to the pilot interactions preceding the 1997 Korean Air Flight 801 (B747) disaster in Guam [1]. It's not clear based on the NTSB update if the Captain was ignoring the First Officer or the other way around.

[1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_801_-_Aircr...

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

#56

Post by cjbprime »

baggy_trough wrote: post #47
cjbprime wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe ATC could be expected to revoke landing clearance on extremely obviously unstable approaches? I wonder why that didn't happen.

You can't be serious.

And yet I am! Care to elaborate?

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

#57

Post by cucumber3732842 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #52
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, Construction companies in the US do not pressure employees to get shit done. Construction workers do not delegate the decisions to work in sketchy circumstances, especially since OSHA holds them accountable for all that. See how silly that sounds? They cook up the rules to be all compliant…

The only thing silly is comparing the construction industry to the airline industry. Construction is pretty notorious for openly encouraging unsafe work environments, airlines are not. Airlines are much more tightly bound by the FAA than any construction company is to any regulatory agency. Airlines have to get permission to let their pilots read documents off an iPad instead of paper, for example. It just isn't a go…

Pilot gets more veto power than the crane guy who gets more veto power than the residential concrete crew but they all still get talked to if they can't get their jobs done.

I didn't say the same. I said the pressure was probably there too. But you can construe it as the former because that's a way easier thing to argue with.

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

#58

Post by stevenwoo »

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.

Pilot B kept warning pilot A(who was at the controls) that the airspeed was too high and no adjustments were made https://www.npr.org/2026/09/10/g-s1-142664/cargo-plane-miami...

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

#59

Post by stouset »

sscaryterry wrote: post #36
cjbprime wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They made a series of at least ten (and that's kind of charitable) this-must-never-happen mistakes that likely rise to the level of extraordinary criminal negligence, including ignoring checklists, alarms, configuring the plane for landing in general, and basically everything related to safety. You don't have to extend sympathy, just as you don't have to extend sympathy to drunk drivers who kill people.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/sympathy-empathy-compassion... I don't have sympathy. I also do know of drunk drivers that have been arrested, who are, good people. Shit happens. I'm not going to judge.

People who voluntarily choose to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while intoxicated are not, in fact, good people.

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

#60

Post by toomuchtodo »

ElProlactin wrote: post #45
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…

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety... > The Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo plane that crashed off a Miami runway on Sunday, killing five people, was operated by a North Carolina company that has been accused by past employees of violating safety regulations, legal documents reveal. There's a lot in the article, but this allegation is worth highlighting: > Seuring's attorney, Michael Anell…

Ahh, so the Amazon delivery contractor squeeze but the air cargo version, with the air cargo corporate entity shielding Amazon from liability.
Post reply on HN