5 ms·

It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several others going off simultaneously, which is highly likely if you've lost an engine due to a bird strike. Eve

It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several others going off simultaneously, which is highly likely if you've lost an engine due to a bird strike. Even if you hear or see the gear warning, you might be too cognitively overloaded to acknowledge and act on it.

weaksauce 2y ago
the aviation term(probably others) for it is task saturation and loss of situational awareness.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Back in the day, there was a third crew member who was primarily tasked with navigation and monitoring systems. Airlines decided it would be cheaper to cut that position and here we are.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Airlines decided it would be cheaper to cut that position and here we are. It's not that easy tbh - the advent of digital monitoring systems, fly-by-wire and glass cockpits plainly eliminated the need for it. On the other hand EASA is pushing for research into single-pilot operations [1]... now that is nuts. [1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-sipo-extended-minimum-crew-operations-single-pilot-operations-safety-risk https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-sipo-ex...
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    "here we are." Here where precisely? Civil aviation is extremely safe in 2024, and this crash made worldwide news precisely because crashes are now very rare in the developed world. If you demand 100 per cent safety, you are bound to be disappointed forever. Not even walking is 100 per cent safe.
  - AYBABTME 2y ago
    Manufacturers made planes that didn't need it, making their plane's TOC more attractive.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Aviation is still much safer than back in the days where 3 or even 4 crew in the flight deck were standard. At some point the tradeoff between increased safety and increasing costs becomes unreasonable.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- hbarka 2y ago
  I’m reading from aviation experts that the fundamental heuristic of “aviate, navigate, communicate” may have been forgotten as a result of panic following the bird strike incident (two minutes prior to the landing attempt). How should this principle have been executed in this situation?
  - harshreality 2y ago
    Panic is understandable momentarily, but any professional pilot should be able to overcome that within a few seconds, and remember their training, which in an emergency is something like aviate, identify the problem if possible, and run checklists. Panic doesn't solve anything, and there's a comfort in having checklists and procedures to run. Something must have gone very wrong in training or with the plane for this to happen. There's a standard short checklist for landing that includes flaps and landing gear. There may also be an emergency landing checklist that would also include those things. The voice recorder and flight data recorder almost certainly survived. We'll know more after those have been recovered and analyzed.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    I don’t want this to come across as second guessing a cockpit that I wasn’t in, but speaking generally, recover the aircraft to a flying condition (aviate), if not on a stabilized approach with high certainty of continuing to be (mostly aviate and some navigate), go around and hold at a safe altitude (A&N) while you run the checklists and assess the aircraft state (A) and tell ATC what your intentions are (communicate). I don’t know what the exact state in that cockpit was, but the video of the aircraft sliding down the runway sans gear at a speed that looked well higher and well longer than normal touchdown suggests that they didn’t have a stabilized approach at the end, whether for good or bad reasons is something for the investigators to figure out.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - weaksauce 2y ago
    the airplane is perfectly fine to continue flying for a while on one engine so their momentary shock should not have been an issue. they've trained extensively for this kind of scenario and should probably have gone around if the bird strike happened on final approach. like the other person said... the voice recorder almost certainly survived and will give more information as to the root cause.
MichaelZuo 2y ago
Isn’t the point of rigorous pilot training and selection to pick out those who will not be ‘cognitively overloaded’ by a dozen or two alarms at the same time, even under great stress?
- cjbprime 2y ago
  Not every country/airline has "rigorous pilot training and selection" -- US airlines require around 5x the number of flight hours as non-US. There are, generally, not enough pilots.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    How is this relevant when the country, South Korea, is known? It’s not a mystery where these pilots were licensed.
    - cjbprime 2y ago
      It is relevant that the US requires ~6x more flight hours for airline hiring than South Korea, and the accident happened in South Korea, no?
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Can you link the source for the flight hour difference? If true it does have some signal but it’s not entirely persuasive. After all there clearly are midwit pilots too with a lot of flight hours, who just manage to scrape by on each step of the way. Edit: Who may very well perform worse in extremus than a less experienced genius pilot.
        cjbprime 2y ago
        The US FAA has required 1500 flight hours to receive an ATP (airline pilot) certificate since 2010: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61#p-61.57(e)(4)(i)(A) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D... South Korea requires 250 hours as a country (6x), and Jeju Air specifically requires 300 (5x): https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-air/#:~:text=300%20hours%20PIC,obtain%20it%20before%20final%20acceptance https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-air/#...)
aaronmdjones 2y ago
> It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several others going off simultaneously The GPWS would literally be screaming "TOO LOW, GEAR" at you, over and over again. I find this difficult to believe. Being too distracted or overloaded to respond to it I can believe.
- Roark66 2y ago
  Perhaps there are too many alarms in case of a bird strike in a modern airliner? "Hydraulic pressure LOW","Voltage in System B Out of SPEC", "Cabinets in the kitchen area Open", "and by the way,the landing gear is not down". One would imagine there are psychology experts at Boeing and others who do nothing else all day ,but decide if one or the other alarm should be prioritised and at which volume (too low and they don't hear it, too loud and it disorients). It is a complex subject. I think in time we realise removing the third crew member was an error.
  - aaronmdjones 2y ago
    Most of those alarms would only be shown as text on the EICAS (Boeing) or ECAM (Airbus). Very few warning systems (the most important, like GPWS, TCAS, RAAS, the engine fire alarms, and the stall warning system) are aural and/or tactile in their annunciation. EDIT: For a practical example, low hydraulic pressure in the left-hand system in a 777 would be yellow text on the EICAS that says "HYD SYS L".
    - cjrp 2y ago
      I don’t think any 737 variant has an EICAS

weaksauce 2y ago

the aviation term(probably others) for it is task saturation and loss of situational awareness.

shadowgovt 2y ago
Back in the day, there was a third crew member who was primarily tasked with navigation and monitoring systems. Airlines decided it would be cheaper to cut that position and here we are.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Airlines decided it would be cheaper to cut that position and here we are. It's not that easy tbh - the advent of digital monitoring systems, fly-by-wire and glass cockpits plainly eliminated the need for it. On the other hand EASA is pushing for research into single-pilot operations [1]... now that is nuts. [1] https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-sipo-extended-minimum-crew-operations-single-pilot-operations-safety-risk https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-sipo-ex...
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "here we are." Here where precisely? Civil aviation is extremely safe in 2024, and this crash made worldwide news precisely because crashes are now very rare in the developed world. If you demand 100 per cent safety, you are bound to be disappointed forever. Not even walking is 100 per cent safe.
- AYBABTME 2y ago
  Manufacturers made planes that didn't need it, making their plane's TOC more attractive.
- echoangle 2y ago
  Aviation is still much safer than back in the days where 3 or even 4 crew in the flight deck were standard. At some point the tradeoff between increased safety and increasing costs becomes unreasonable.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
hbarka 2y ago
I’m reading from aviation experts that the fundamental heuristic of “aviate, navigate, communicate” may have been forgotten as a result of panic following the bird strike incident (two minutes prior to the landing attempt). How should this principle have been executed in this situation?
- harshreality 2y ago
  Panic is understandable momentarily, but any professional pilot should be able to overcome that within a few seconds, and remember their training, which in an emergency is something like aviate, identify the problem if possible, and run checklists. Panic doesn't solve anything, and there's a comfort in having checklists and procedures to run. Something must have gone very wrong in training or with the plane for this to happen. There's a standard short checklist for landing that includes flaps and landing gear. There may also be an emergency landing checklist that would also include those things. The voice recorder and flight data recorder almost certainly survived. We'll know more after those have been recovered and analyzed.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  I don’t want this to come across as second guessing a cockpit that I wasn’t in, but speaking generally, recover the aircraft to a flying condition (aviate), if not on a stabilized approach with high certainty of continuing to be (mostly aviate and some navigate), go around and hold at a safe altitude (A&N) while you run the checklists and assess the aircraft state (A) and tell ATC what your intentions are (communicate). I don’t know what the exact state in that cockpit was, but the video of the aircraft sliding down the runway sans gear at a speed that looked well higher and well longer than normal touchdown suggests that they didn’t have a stabilized approach at the end, whether for good or bad reasons is something for the investigators to figure out.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- weaksauce 2y ago
  the airplane is perfectly fine to continue flying for a while on one engine so their momentary shock should not have been an issue. they've trained extensively for this kind of scenario and should probably have gone around if the bird strike happened on final approach. like the other person said... the voice recorder almost certainly survived and will give more information as to the root cause.

MichaelZuo 2y ago

Isn’t the point of rigorous pilot training and selection to pick out those who will not be ‘cognitively overloaded’ by a dozen or two alarms at the same time, even under great stress?

cjbprime 2y ago
Not every country/airline has "rigorous pilot training and selection" -- US airlines require around 5x the number of flight hours as non-US. There are, generally, not enough pilots.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  How is this relevant when the country, South Korea, is known? It’s not a mystery where these pilots were licensed.
  - cjbprime 2y ago
    It is relevant that the US requires ~6x more flight hours for airline hiring than South Korea, and the accident happened in South Korea, no?
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Can you link the source for the flight hour difference? If true it does have some signal but it’s not entirely persuasive. After all there clearly are midwit pilots too with a lot of flight hours, who just manage to scrape by on each step of the way. Edit: Who may very well perform worse in extremus than a less experienced genius pilot.
      - cjbprime 2y ago
        The US FAA has required 1500 flight hours to receive an ATP (airline pilot) certificate since 2010: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61#p-61.57(e)(4)(i)(A) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D... South Korea requires 250 hours as a country (6x), and Jeju Air specifically requires 300 (5x): https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-air/#:~:text=300%20hours%20PIC,obtain%20it%20before%20final%20acceptance https://epicflightacademy.com/hiring-requirements-jeju-air/#...)

aaronmdjones 2y ago

> It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several others going off simultaneously The GPWS would literally be screaming "TOO LOW, GEAR" at you, over and over again. I find this difficult to believe. Being too distracted or overloaded to respond to it I can believe.

Roark66 2y ago
Perhaps there are too many alarms in case of a bird strike in a modern airliner? "Hydraulic pressure LOW","Voltage in System B Out of SPEC", "Cabinets in the kitchen area Open", "and by the way,the landing gear is not down". One would imagine there are psychology experts at Boeing and others who do nothing else all day ,but decide if one or the other alarm should be prioritised and at which volume (too low and they don't hear it, too loud and it disorients). It is a complex subject. I think in time we realise removing the third crew member was an error.
- aaronmdjones 2y ago
  Most of those alarms would only be shown as text on the EICAS (Boeing) or ECAM (Airbus). Very few warning systems (the most important, like GPWS, TCAS, RAAS, the engine fire alarms, and the stall warning system) are aural and/or tactile in their annunciation. EDIT: For a practical example, low hydraulic pressure in the left-hand system in a 777 would be yellow text on the EICAS that says "HYD SYS L".
  - cjrp 2y ago
    I don’t think any 737 variant has an EICAS