4 ms·

It's not 80% pilot error, but poor training, signature of many Russian airlines. In fact, all 3 accidents last 6 years (this one, 2020 Ural Airlines field crash

It's not 80% pilot error, but poor training, signature of many Russian airlines. In fact, all 3 accidents last 6 years (this one, 2020 Ural Airlines field crash landing near Moscow, 2023 field landing near Novosibirsk) were due to pilot inadequate training, leading to inadequate behavior (ZIA case) or overreacting to issues (the diversion to OVB). If you watch some traffic landing videos, Russian planes sometimes land on the front wheels, exactly because of overspeed. The belief that you need to land slightly faster than the speed in the manual, is very frequent. Some companies did change this recently, though. And the plane in the OP was switched to "direct control mode". The default mode is like Airbus fly-by-wire where the yoke sets vertical speed. The direct control mode is like Boeing's. The pilots were not prepared for this kind of change.

speed_spread 1y ago
It's poor pilot judgment, period. Not sure that's the kind of thing that training can overcome. It's downhill from the moment they decide to ignore the incoming storm. I read the whole thing and my conclusion is that the man is a moron and shouldn't have been allowed near an airplane, ever.
- culebron21 1y ago
  And who did put him the captain seat?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- brazzy 1y ago
  That "period" is actually the real killer: thinking that human error is a valid reason to explain a disaster. It never is. Never. Because humans are fallible. They will always make mistakes, especially under stress. The only way to achieve real safety is to build a system that works despite humans making mistakes. Pinning blame on individuals is how you avoid the hard work of actually improving safety. You mentioned that they ignored the storm. There are multiple systemic ways to prevent that: clear rules that make it mandatory to avoid storms. Empowering the first officer to question unsafe decisions from the captain. A pre-takeoff checklist that requires the pilots to check weather conditions and discuss how to handle them. And of course training and certification procedures that ensure these things are actually done. Yes, the pilot made grave errors. But not for the first time. It was the airline's job to notice that, put him into more intense training and if he really proves unable to improve, put him in a non-flying position. They completely failed to do any of that. And the insidious thing is that if training and enforcement of safety procedures are lax, it creates an atmosphere where unsafe behavior is normalized and spreads, where people who know better are hesitant to point it out for fear of being seen as troublemakers.
  - mppm 1y ago
    Everything you suggest is in fact part of standard (and mandatory) procedures. If a pilot makes one serious error, you should look closely at the circumstances. If the pilot makes ten in sequence, he probably is, as GP put it, a moron who shouldn't have been allowed near an airplane, ever. Circumstances do matter, but they do not constitute a general license to dismiss personal responsibility, especially in occupations known to come with very high responsibility.
- rob74 1y ago
  That may be true, but the airline should have noticed his issues and made sure to either get him to an acceptable level or let him go. Instead, they failed to notice his problems and promoted him to captain and even instructor.
duskwuff 1y ago
I get the sense that part of what's going on here is that training is treated as a box-checking exercise, rather than as a genuine opportunity for learning and improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if there's also some institutional pressure for trainers to not fail pilots who perform poorly in training.

speed_spread 1y ago

It's poor pilot judgment, period. Not sure that's the kind of thing that training can overcome. It's downhill from the moment they decide to ignore the incoming storm. I read the whole thing and my conclusion is that the man is a moron and shouldn't have been allowed near an airplane, ever.

culebron21 1y ago
And who did put him the captain seat?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
brazzy 1y ago
That "period" is actually the real killer: thinking that human error is a valid reason to explain a disaster. It never is. Never. Because humans are fallible. They will always make mistakes, especially under stress. The only way to achieve real safety is to build a system that works despite humans making mistakes. Pinning blame on individuals is how you avoid the hard work of actually improving safety. You mentioned that they ignored the storm. There are multiple systemic ways to prevent that: clear rules that make it mandatory to avoid storms. Empowering the first officer to question unsafe decisions from the captain. A pre-takeoff checklist that requires the pilots to check weather conditions and discuss how to handle them. And of course training and certification procedures that ensure these things are actually done. Yes, the pilot made grave errors. But not for the first time. It was the airline's job to notice that, put him into more intense training and if he really proves unable to improve, put him in a non-flying position. They completely failed to do any of that. And the insidious thing is that if training and enforcement of safety procedures are lax, it creates an atmosphere where unsafe behavior is normalized and spreads, where people who know better are hesitant to point it out for fear of being seen as troublemakers.
- mppm 1y ago
  Everything you suggest is in fact part of standard (and mandatory) procedures. If a pilot makes one serious error, you should look closely at the circumstances. If the pilot makes ten in sequence, he probably is, as GP put it, a moron who shouldn't have been allowed near an airplane, ever. Circumstances do matter, but they do not constitute a general license to dismiss personal responsibility, especially in occupations known to come with very high responsibility.
rob74 1y ago
That may be true, but the airline should have noticed his issues and made sure to either get him to an acceptable level or let him go. Instead, they failed to notice his problems and promoted him to captain and even instructor.

duskwuff 1y ago

I get the sense that part of what's going on here is that training is treated as a box-checking exercise, rather than as a genuine opportunity for learning and improvement. I wouldn't be surprised if there's also some institutional pressure for trainers to not fail pilots who perform poorly in training.