6 ms·

Question for professional pilots here: does this feel like normal behaviour for a pilot? From my limited experience of pilots, this seems entirely unlike the k

Question for professional pilots here: does this feel like normal behaviour for a pilot? From my limited experience of pilots, this seems entirely unlike the kind of behaviour you'd expect - they're usually conservative when it comes to safety or is that just the projected image to reassure the public?!

raverbashing 8y ago
No, it isn't normal behavior. And it is not unknown that some airlines are more lax than others.
- stragulus 8y ago
  You mean LAX?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yutyut 8y ago
No. Go-around and assess the damage on the deck.
- berti 8y ago
  A go-around wouldn't give much chance to assess the damage beyond superficial. Would be much better to fully land and stop.
  - AdrianB1 8y ago
    Not before consuming fuel. If overload was a factor, immediate landing is not a good idea.
travisjungroth 8y ago
I used to work as a flight instructor and flew corporate. I’ve flown small airplanes with a bunch of airline pilots, whatever that is worth. This does not seem like normal behavior from an airline pilot at all. I can see about 10% of private pilots doing something like this. It would probably be someone who has been flying a long time and gotten way too comfortable. Things always work out, so why not this time? The difference with an airline is its incredibly public flying. Even if the pilots disregard everyone’s safety (including their own) they know that they’ll be caught. You do something dumb and it’s going to be on the news, even if it all works out. How many of us can say that about or jobs? The fact that the crew thought that this was a risk worth taking reflects really poorly on the safety culture of that airline. They thought that flying an airplane that was compromised some unknown amount was worth keeping the schedule going (or maybe people just wouldn’t find out?). That idea got informed somehow.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- murukesh_s 8y ago
  Here's the statement from the Airline. Not sure if 3600 hours is good experience in the industry? May be it is.. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpSNZO4V4AAPjKa.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpSNZO4V4AAPjKa.jpg:large
  - AdrianB1 8y ago
    3600 hours is a good measure for routine, not for skills. I saw stupid accidents done by pilots with over 20 years and 10,000 hours of flying.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Note: 3600 hours on type, not total flight hours.
unionemployee 8y ago
Unfortunately don’t have time for a long post at the moment, but as an airline pilot and instructor/check pilot, I can say that extreme incompetence exists in the airline world, especially in Africa, India, SE Asia. There could be some very good reasons that they chose to continue, and often I learn those reasons when the facts are released, discovering that a good decision was made. I’ll be following the investigation, but this one seems somewhat alarming to me. Here’s another of mind-blowing incompetence, also from India - https://www.ajc.com/news/national/airliner-forced-land-after-pilots-accidentally-leave-landing-gear-down-for-entire-flight/YCu3nXWUl3367aYfQHffMJ/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/airliner-forced-land-after.... Also, more automated, single-pilot/ground operated or pilotless aircraft can’t come soon enough.
- codeisawesome 8y ago
  My, what a broad brush you have. With of course no ‘time’ to back it up with facts.
  - ddeck 8y ago
    Some facts: Hull loss rates by region of operator per million departures (Jet / Turboprop) 2012-2016: [0] - 2.21 / 7.38 Africa - 1.17 / 20.59 CIS - 0.74 / 3.42 Middle East / North Africa - 0.53 / 1.55 Latin America / Caribbean - 0.48 / 1.45 Asia Pacific - 0.22 / 0.98 North America - 0.14 / 0.73 Europe - 0.00 / 8.73 North Asia India falls below Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan in air safety audit[1] >The audit — ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme — seeks to identify if countries have effectively and consistently implemented the critical elements of a safety-oversight system. >India is one of the 15 countries that are below the minimum target rates. [0] https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-02-22-01.aspx https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-02-22-01.aspx [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/india-falls-below-myanmar-nepal-pakistan-in-air-safety-audit/articleshow/65945649.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation...
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      I appreciate the hull-loss facts, but do they directly support "pilot incompetence"? I've read enough NTSB reports to know it's usually multiple congruent factors (aircraft maintenance, organisational culture, pilot work-load).
einrealist 8y ago
There is nothing about the ‚why’. Maybe they had an engine problem past V1 and decided to go. The long go around can be explained with them having to focus on stabilizing the situation, maybe involving problems with the landing gear. Even with the severe damage, the inner cabin and pressurization must have been intact. Assuming human failure should come last, when we have no details about the cause.
- FabHK 8y ago
  > The long go around can be explained ... by their desire to overwrite the CVR??
  - einrealist 8y ago
    Well, I hope the pilots were not so dumb. I mean, there is still the FDR and recorded radio comms. If they took that time to overwrite the CVR, then they will probably lose their job anyway due to the suspicion of hiding, even when they would be acquitted of wrongdoing in a legal proceeding.
jillesvangurp 8y ago
Not a pilot but familiar with the aviation world and procedures. Obviously the plane had issues getting off the ground. Probably because it was too heavy. Typically, pilots calculate a speed beyond which they can no longer safely abort the takeoff. Beyond that speed, the plane is basically going to fly or shoot off the runway and crash. That point is decided based on weight, wind, runway length, etc. It's entirely possible mistakes were made with that or with loading the plane. Maybe there was some wind shear as well, which could explain a sudden drop or unexpected challenges getting off the ground. Usually the co-pilot's job is to call these speeds out and if either of them calls to abort, there is supposed to be no discussion or debate on this and pilots are trained to act right away because every second counts. Obviously that did not happen So, the pilots were not aware of issues before the abort speed (or they should have aborted) and committed to getting off the ground. I'm sure the in cockpit recordings will be part of the investigation. They sort of succeeded in the sense that they hit some objects but ultimately did not crash and got off the ground. Their climb rate must have been terrible. Usually the gear comes up as soon as you have a positive rate of climb (reduces drag). I imagine they called gear up seconds after leaving the ground before they hit anything even and the gear was likely transitioning. Wind shear could have caused enough change in airspeed to cause the plane to not climb or even descend a bit. A heavy plane would have used up most of the runway in any case. They then proceeded with what looks like normal procedure to get to altitude. Presumably they would have almost climbed out and changed frequencies from tower to local traffic controllers after 20-30 seconds or so. Recordings of that are going to be interesting. Presumably the damage to the ILS equipment would not have been noticed right away on the ground and people would have needed some time to figure out what the hell happened and what caused it and what plane hit it. Likewise the damage to the wall would not have been reported right away. By then the plane would have transitioned out of their area. The question is whether the pilots noticed that they hit any objects and what the communication was with these controllers on this. The plane would have been pitched up (restricts visibility to the ground in front of you) and the damage occurred pretty far behind the pilots. So they may not have seen the obstacles immediately in front of them or heard/felt hitting them. These planes are big and heavy and there's lots of noise and vibrations when a plane takes off. The damage looks dramatic but you wouldn't be able to see it until after the landing. Obviously the plane was flying and climbing and cruising normally. And they also landed safely. So flight operations seem to not have been directly affected. So, I can see them concluding that they had a stressful takeoff but had gotten in the air successfully. Then some time later they got the news that they hit some obstacles and that there is probably damage to the plane. The big question is why that took 3 hours. I imagine it involved a lot of communication on the ground.

raverbashing 8y ago

No, it isn't normal behavior. And it is not unknown that some airlines are more lax than others.

stragulus 8y ago
You mean LAX?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yutyut 8y ago

No. Go-around and assess the damage on the deck.

berti 8y ago
A go-around wouldn't give much chance to assess the damage beyond superficial. Would be much better to fully land and stop.
- AdrianB1 8y ago
  Not before consuming fuel. If overload was a factor, immediate landing is not a good idea.

travisjungroth 8y ago

I used to work as a flight instructor and flew corporate. I’ve flown small airplanes with a bunch of airline pilots, whatever that is worth. This does not seem like normal behavior from an airline pilot at all. I can see about 10% of private pilots doing something like this. It would probably be someone who has been flying a long time and gotten way too comfortable. Things always work out, so why not this time? The difference with an airline is its incredibly public flying. Even if the pilots disregard everyone’s safety (including their own) they know that they’ll be caught. You do something dumb and it’s going to be on the news, even if it all works out. How many of us can say that about or jobs? The fact that the crew thought that this was a risk worth taking reflects really poorly on the safety culture of that airline. They thought that flying an airplane that was compromised some unknown amount was worth keeping the schedule going (or maybe people just wouldn’t find out?). That idea got informed somehow.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
murukesh_s 8y ago
Here's the statement from the Airline. Not sure if 3600 hours is good experience in the industry? May be it is.. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpSNZO4V4AAPjKa.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpSNZO4V4AAPjKa.jpg:large
- AdrianB1 8y ago
  3600 hours is a good measure for routine, not for skills. I saw stupid accidents done by pilots with over 20 years and 10,000 hours of flying.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Note: 3600 hours on type, not total flight hours.

unionemployee 8y ago

Unfortunately don’t have time for a long post at the moment, but as an airline pilot and instructor/check pilot, I can say that extreme incompetence exists in the airline world, especially in Africa, India, SE Asia. There could be some very good reasons that they chose to continue, and often I learn those reasons when the facts are released, discovering that a good decision was made. I’ll be following the investigation, but this one seems somewhat alarming to me. Here’s another of mind-blowing incompetence, also from India - https://www.ajc.com/news/national/airliner-forced-land-after-pilots-accidentally-leave-landing-gear-down-for-entire-flight/YCu3nXWUl3367aYfQHffMJ/ https://www.ajc.com/news/national/airliner-forced-land-after.... Also, more automated, single-pilot/ground operated or pilotless aircraft can’t come soon enough.

codeisawesome 8y ago
My, what a broad brush you have. With of course no ‘time’ to back it up with facts.
- ddeck 8y ago
  Some facts: Hull loss rates by region of operator per million departures (Jet / Turboprop) 2012-2016: [0] - 2.21 / 7.38 Africa - 1.17 / 20.59 CIS - 0.74 / 3.42 Middle East / North Africa - 0.53 / 1.55 Latin America / Caribbean - 0.48 / 1.45 Asia Pacific - 0.22 / 0.98 North America - 0.14 / 0.73 Europe - 0.00 / 8.73 North Asia India falls below Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan in air safety audit[1] >The audit — ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme — seeks to identify if countries have effectively and consistently implemented the critical elements of a safety-oversight system. >India is one of the 15 countries that are below the minimum target rates. [0] https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-02-22-01.aspx https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-02-22-01.aspx [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/india-falls-below-myanmar-nepal-pakistan-in-air-safety-audit/articleshow/65945649.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation...
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    I appreciate the hull-loss facts, but do they directly support "pilot incompetence"? I've read enough NTSB reports to know it's usually multiple congruent factors (aircraft maintenance, organisational culture, pilot work-load).

einrealist 8y ago

There is nothing about the ‚why’. Maybe they had an engine problem past V1 and decided to go. The long go around can be explained with them having to focus on stabilizing the situation, maybe involving problems with the landing gear. Even with the severe damage, the inner cabin and pressurization must have been intact. Assuming human failure should come last, when we have no details about the cause.

FabHK 8y ago
> The long go around can be explained ... by their desire to overwrite the CVR??
- einrealist 8y ago
  Well, I hope the pilots were not so dumb. I mean, there is still the FDR and recorded radio comms. If they took that time to overwrite the CVR, then they will probably lose their job anyway due to the suspicion of hiding, even when they would be acquitted of wrongdoing in a legal proceeding.

jillesvangurp 8y ago

Not a pilot but familiar with the aviation world and procedures. Obviously the plane had issues getting off the ground. Probably because it was too heavy. Typically, pilots calculate a speed beyond which they can no longer safely abort the takeoff. Beyond that speed, the plane is basically going to fly or shoot off the runway and crash. That point is decided based on weight, wind, runway length, etc. It's entirely possible mistakes were made with that or with loading the plane. Maybe there was some wind shear as well, which could explain a sudden drop or unexpected challenges getting off the ground. Usually the co-pilot's job is to call these speeds out and if either of them calls to abort, there is supposed to be no discussion or debate on this and pilots are trained to act right away because every second counts. Obviously that did not happen So, the pilots were not aware of issues before the abort speed (or they should have aborted) and committed to getting off the ground. I'm sure the in cockpit recordings will be part of the investigation. They sort of succeeded in the sense that they hit some objects but ultimately did not crash and got off the ground. Their climb rate must have been terrible. Usually the gear comes up as soon as you have a positive rate of climb (reduces drag). I imagine they called gear up seconds after leaving the ground before they hit anything even and the gear was likely transitioning. Wind shear could have caused enough change in airspeed to cause the plane to not climb or even descend a bit. A heavy plane would have used up most of the runway in any case. They then proceeded with what looks like normal procedure to get to altitude. Presumably they would have almost climbed out and changed frequencies from tower to local traffic controllers after 20-30 seconds or so. Recordings of that are going to be interesting. Presumably the damage to the ILS equipment would not have been noticed right away on the ground and people would have needed some time to figure out what the hell happened and what caused it and what plane hit it. Likewise the damage to the wall would not have been reported right away. By then the plane would have transitioned out of their area. The question is whether the pilots noticed that they hit any objects and what the communication was with these controllers on this. The plane would have been pitched up (restricts visibility to the ground in front of you) and the damage occurred pretty far behind the pilots. So they may not have seen the obstacles immediately in front of them or heard/felt hitting them. These planes are big and heavy and there's lots of noise and vibrations when a plane takes off. The damage looks dramatic but you wouldn't be able to see it until after the landing. Obviously the plane was flying and climbing and cruising normally. And they also landed safely. So flight operations seem to not have been directly affected. So, I can see them concluding that they had a stressful takeoff but had gotten in the air successfully. Then some time later they got the news that they hit some obstacles and that there is probably damage to the plane. The big question is why that took 3 hours. I imagine it involved a lot of communication on the ground.