3 ms·

It's super weird to me that the article just presents as an article of faith that the NTSB inappropriately blames pilots.

mcguire 3y ago
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, unless the aircraft just suddenly fell apart, the pilot is always involved somehow. For example, in this case, the direct cause of the crash was the pilot providing a hard right (?) rudder input. Second, and more cynically, the representation of pilots in the investigation is the weakest (and identifying the pilots as at fault causes the least economic consequences on everybody). For example, if you look back to when Airbus introduced the fly-by-wire system with moded inputs, their planes were dropping like bricks. (Including by the plane's test pilot at the Paris air show.) However, most (all?) of those incidents were assigned to pilot error in spite of the fact that an airplane that would change its flight characteristics or even conflict with pilot actions was a fun new thing.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  The airshow one looks very much like pilot error... not a great example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q You have an experienced pilot who knew the plane and its safety systems disable alpha floor protection before completely botching the approach. He could have aborted and gone around to get set up properly. But he didn't. Instead he dropped to 30 feet on idle engine thrust, in a high drag configuration, and didn't press the TOGA button until 4 seconds before the crash. That's not enough time for the engine to spool up from idle. I don't support prosecuting pilots except in the most egregious cases and I think involuntary manslaughter was the right call here. Edit: The pilot claimed to have done this maneuver 20 times prior to the crash.
Zak 3y ago
It is weird, particularly when the NTSB report lists the following factors before the pilot's errors: Occurrence #1: LOSS OF ENGINE POWER(TOTAL) - NONMECHANICAL Phase of Operation: CRUISE Findings 1. (F) FUEL SYSTEM,SELECTOR/VALVE 2. (F) ACFT/EQUIP,INADEQUATE CONTROL LOCATION - OWNER/BUILDER 3. (F) FUEL SYSTEM,SELECTOR/VALVE - UNMARKED 4. (F) ENGINE INSTRUMENTS,FUEL QUANTITY GAGE - INADEQUATE 5. (F) ENGINE INSTRUMENTS,FUEL QUANTITY GAGE - UNMARKED It then goes on to discuss the pilot's decisions that contributed to running out of fuel: failing to adequately plan and prepare for the flight, failing to refuel the aircraft, and setting the fuel selector incorrectly. The next section discusses the actual loss of control, which is 100% on the pilot; he was too distracted trying to turn the glider he was actually flying back in to the motorized aircraft he wanted to be flying to fly it. That may sound harsh, but engine failure is a significant risk in single-engine aircraft, which pilots are generally expected to prepare for.

mcguire 3y ago

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, unless the aircraft just suddenly fell apart, the pilot is always involved somehow. For example, in this case, the direct cause of the crash was the pilot providing a hard right (?) rudder input. Second, and more cynically, the representation of pilots in the investigation is the weakest (and identifying the pilots as at fault causes the least economic consequences on everybody). For example, if you look back to when Airbus introduced the fly-by-wire system with moded inputs, their planes were dropping like bricks. (Including by the plane's test pilot at the Paris air show.) However, most (all?) of those incidents were assigned to pilot error in spite of the fact that an airplane that would change its flight characteristics or even conflict with pilot actions was a fun new thing.

kayodelycaon 3y ago
The airshow one looks very much like pilot error... not a great example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296Q You have an experienced pilot who knew the plane and its safety systems disable alpha floor protection before completely botching the approach. He could have aborted and gone around to get set up properly. But he didn't. Instead he dropped to 30 feet on idle engine thrust, in a high drag configuration, and didn't press the TOGA button until 4 seconds before the crash. That's not enough time for the engine to spool up from idle. I don't support prosecuting pilots except in the most egregious cases and I think involuntary manslaughter was the right call here. Edit: The pilot claimed to have done this maneuver 20 times prior to the crash.

Zak 3y ago

It is weird, particularly when the NTSB report lists the following factors before the pilot's errors: Occurrence #1: LOSS OF ENGINE POWER(TOTAL) - NONMECHANICAL Phase of Operation: CRUISE Findings 1. (F) FUEL SYSTEM,SELECTOR/VALVE 2. (F) ACFT/EQUIP,INADEQUATE CONTROL LOCATION - OWNER/BUILDER 3. (F) FUEL SYSTEM,SELECTOR/VALVE - UNMARKED 4. (F) ENGINE INSTRUMENTS,FUEL QUANTITY GAGE - INADEQUATE 5. (F) ENGINE INSTRUMENTS,FUEL QUANTITY GAGE - UNMARKED It then goes on to discuss the pilot's decisions that contributed to running out of fuel: failing to adequately plan and prepare for the flight, failing to refuel the aircraft, and setting the fuel selector incorrectly. The next section discusses the actual loss of control, which is 100% on the pilot; he was too distracted trying to turn the glider he was actually flying back in to the motorized aircraft he wanted to be flying to fly it. That may sound harsh, but engine failure is a significant risk in single-engine aircraft, which pilots are generally expected to prepare for.