5 ms·

The NTSB is great precisely because they deal in facts. This article does not, yet presents speculation as fact, without critical context that the NTSB certain

The NTSB is great precisely because they deal in facts. This article does not, yet presents speculation as fact, without critical context that the NTSB certainly considered. Facts are important because you can learn from them, speculation about human behavior is sensationalist bullshit because you can't prove it and can't reliably prevent human error in the first place. For example: only a handful of 372's were ever ETOPS certified and I'm pretty sure this plane was not one of them. Should airframes with lower reliability like that even be allowed to operate in areas like Hawaii in the first place? Clearly these pilots weren't prepared to handle the situation, what needs to happen (and what the NTSB aims to do) is to avoid putting any other pilots in the same situation, from a holistic perspective

ajross 3y ago
Pretty sure your point about 737-200 ETOPS certification is also not present in the NTSB report. Why is it OK for you to pontificate but not the linked author?
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
  I meant to have a point that if you grab at tenuous connections every report would speculate to the point of uselessness, but that got lost to a cut and paste mistake while rearranging the comment.
rob74 3y ago
Well, in this case it was undeniably human behavior that crashed the plane: if the pilots would have, at any point during the flight except at the very end, realized that they were trying to fly using the damaged engine, and switched to the other engine instead, they probably could have salvaged the situation. So I think a psychological analysis of why this didn't happen is warranted, and the story about another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it.
- prmph 3y ago
  > another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it. As I understand it from the article, he had a difference of opinion on how to interpret certain procedures, not a "disregard" of them.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Proper crew resource management is a part of "procedures" and The Captain should callous disregard for exactly that.
    - prmph 3y ago
      No, you don't know that. I'm just not sure why people are trying to read things into the narrative that simply no known. The captain rather demonstrated proper CRM by delegating aviating to the co-pilot while he communicated with tower control. He also trusted the judgment of the fist officer as to which engine was out, although the information he was given was wrong.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Another pilot didn’t want to fly with them because they disagreed on procedure and the chief pilot ended up siding with the captain.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    The other pilot was told by the chief pilot to not fly with the captain. Also, see this quote: > “This is the way we work when I am with her, you know, you have to yell at her to force her to do things.” This is ignoring the paid-in-blood lessons of the worst aviation accident in history (Tenerife) that could have been avoided if the captain listened to his crew. Crewmembers should always feel free to speak up in safetry critical situations. You don't "force them to do things". I don't think this contributed to this particular incident because both pilots agreed on the wrong engine but it is very valid criticism IMO.
jnsaff2 3y ago
ETOPS has a very specific reason for being. Does not matter for island hopping at all. And would have made diddly-squat difference in a case where wrong engine is shut down. Or would you also like there to be more than 2 engines just in case a pilot shuts down the wrong engine in the case of a single engine failure?
- flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
  My original intent mentioning ETOPS was supposed to be a point about wild speculation being detrimental to reporting and recommendations, unfortunately the point got lost in a copy paste mistake while rearranging my comment. ETOPS absolutely _could_ have made the difference here. Either by avoiding the engine failure in the first place my way of more strict maintenance requirements, or potentially by setting the expectation that the aircraft can operate with a single engine and causing the pilots to rethink which engine was underperforming. But just like the original article, speculation like that is not practical for an NTSB report
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    ETOPS is about EXTENDED operations on single engine. There is nothing extended about 30 min island hopping. They would need ETOPS if their closest alternate would be mainland. > causing pilots to rethink Really? Really?
    - flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
      Yes, really. The pilots checked flaps/gear multiple times trying to diagnose the speed & altitude issues. The article says the pilots assumed that was the expected performance of the old engines, but I haven't read the transcripts to see if that's another speculation/editorialization by the author. Theorizing that better expectations for single engine performance could have avoided the crash is no more of a leap than what the author made. The point of ETOPS is to ensure that pilots can continue to operate the plane on a single engine, and that the likelihood of dual engine failure is vanishingly small. It explicitly requires manageable pilot workload (which was cited by the NTSB as a failure/contributor to this crash), and is implemented in part through more rigorous maintenance and inspection. You're right that ETOPS would not be required for a flight like this but aside from the notable flight envelope difference (since ETOPS focuses on engine failure while cruising far from airports) the considerations for ETOPS are very similar to considerations that would go into prevention this crash in the future.

ajross 3y ago

Pretty sure your point about 737-200 ETOPS certification is also not present in the NTSB report. Why is it OK for you to pontificate but not the linked author?

flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
I meant to have a point that if you grab at tenuous connections every report would speculate to the point of uselessness, but that got lost to a cut and paste mistake while rearranging the comment.

rob74 3y ago

Well, in this case it was undeniably human behavior that crashed the plane: if the pilots would have, at any point during the flight except at the very end, realized that they were trying to fly using the damaged engine, and switched to the other engine instead, they probably could have salvaged the situation. So I think a psychological analysis of why this didn't happen is warranted, and the story about another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it.

prmph 3y ago
> another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it. As I understand it from the article, he had a difference of opinion on how to interpret certain procedures, not a "disregard" of them.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Proper crew resource management is a part of "procedures" and The Captain should callous disregard for exactly that.
  - prmph 3y ago
    No, you don't know that. I'm just not sure why people are trying to read things into the narrative that simply no known. The captain rather demonstrated proper CRM by delegating aviating to the co-pilot while he communicated with tower control. He also trusted the judgment of the fist officer as to which engine was out, although the information he was given was wrong.
kortilla 3y ago
Another pilot didn’t want to fly with them because they disagreed on procedure and the chief pilot ended up siding with the captain.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  The other pilot was told by the chief pilot to not fly with the captain. Also, see this quote: > “This is the way we work when I am with her, you know, you have to yell at her to force her to do things.” This is ignoring the paid-in-blood lessons of the worst aviation accident in history (Tenerife) that could have been avoided if the captain listened to his crew. Crewmembers should always feel free to speak up in safetry critical situations. You don't "force them to do things". I don't think this contributed to this particular incident because both pilots agreed on the wrong engine but it is very valid criticism IMO.

jnsaff2 3y ago

ETOPS has a very specific reason for being. Does not matter for island hopping at all. And would have made diddly-squat difference in a case where wrong engine is shut down. Or would you also like there to be more than 2 engines just in case a pilot shuts down the wrong engine in the case of a single engine failure?

flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
My original intent mentioning ETOPS was supposed to be a point about wild speculation being detrimental to reporting and recommendations, unfortunately the point got lost in a copy paste mistake while rearranging my comment. ETOPS absolutely _could_ have made the difference here. Either by avoiding the engine failure in the first place my way of more strict maintenance requirements, or potentially by setting the expectation that the aircraft can operate with a single engine and causing the pilots to rethink which engine was underperforming. But just like the original article, speculation like that is not practical for an NTSB report
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  ETOPS is about EXTENDED operations on single engine. There is nothing extended about 30 min island hopping. They would need ETOPS if their closest alternate would be mainland. > causing pilots to rethink Really? Really?
  - flaminHotSpeedo 3y ago
    Yes, really. The pilots checked flaps/gear multiple times trying to diagnose the speed & altitude issues. The article says the pilots assumed that was the expected performance of the old engines, but I haven't read the transcripts to see if that's another speculation/editorialization by the author. Theorizing that better expectations for single engine performance could have avoided the crash is no more of a leap than what the author made. The point of ETOPS is to ensure that pilots can continue to operate the plane on a single engine, and that the likelihood of dual engine failure is vanishingly small. It explicitly requires manageable pilot workload (which was cited by the NTSB as a failure/contributor to this crash), and is implemented in part through more rigorous maintenance and inspection. You're right that ETOPS would not be required for a flight like this but aside from the notable flight envelope difference (since ETOPS focuses on engine failure while cruising far from airports) the considerations for ETOPS are very similar to considerations that would go into prevention this crash in the future.