Originally posted by xspeedy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lion Air crash in Bali
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by xspeedy View PostAll new A/C should have GoPros installed. City buses have them, why not A/C?
Comment
-
I think what was meant by the go-pro is that it would show the pilots actions within the cockpit. Whilst this may come of some use i very much doubt it can provide any more information than the FDR and CVR and could be viewed as a privacy invasion. In other circumstances it could come in handy for instance if a crime has been committed or for when pilots misbehave however I personally would stick to what is known until it can be proven that video can provide any additional information. It is possible that video could also mislead investigators in some circumstances. Best working with a blank canvas in my eyes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Deadstick View PostI always appreciate your logic and thoughts Gabriel, but this doesn't happen anywhere, anymore, to my knowledge in the past, what, couple of decades? Wind shear and microbursts haven't been a crash phenomenon since, I don't know, when? Someone was way behind the airplane and the difference in reported weather needs to be sorted out. The boxes will tell, but I think that First Officer got caught so far behind the airplane, and the Captain reacted too late. I am thoroughly happy no one died but the 737-800.
Again, by history (and not by the specific info we have about this accident), yes, chances are that pilot screwing up was at least a major link in the chain of events.
But the rainbow of possibilities is wide, both with pilots being "guilty" (note: pilot error is never an acceptable cause) and with the pilots being heroes.
Say that there was a dual engine failure short of landing due to birds ingestion, for example. Yes, the chances are low. But once the accident DID happen, the chances don't count any more. The accident happened because of one specific chain of event and that's with 100% of probability. Or what are the chances that the US Air accident was due to a dual engine failure due to a flock of Canada geese?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostI am not stating a position towards any specific kind of accident.
Again, by history (and not by the specific info we have about this accident), yes, chances are that pilot screwing up was at least a major link in the chain of events.
But the rainbow of possibilities is wide, both with pilots being "guilty" (note: pilot error is never an acceptable cause) and with the pilots being heroes.
Say that there was a dual engine failure short of landing due to birds ingestion, for example. Yes, the chances are low. But once the accident DID happen, the chances don't count any more. The accident happened because of one specific chain of event and that's with 100% of probability. Or what are the chances that the US Air accident was due to a dual engine failure due to a flock of Canada geese?
According to the Flight Safety Foundation, bulletins for pilots at around that time indicated a few storm clouds at 1,700 feet. A moderate wind blew from the south-southeast but flicked in a wide arc from east-southeast all the way to the west.
Comment
-
I see your point. I had not noticed the comments of the flight crew.
Yet, in the Delta L1011 case, the plane that landed immediately before didn't feel a thing. These localized and "concentrated" (small but strong) storms can appear and disappear (or move away) in a very short time.
I am in no way saying that this is what happened here. Just that maybe it could have.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leftseat86 View PostSo was the captain of that Turkish 737 IIRC
Nevertheless, having a 10,000hr+ pilot in the left seat does, in this case, at least eliminate the "inexperience" conjecture that often follows crashes in this part of the world.Trump is an idiot!
Vote Democrats!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chris Kilroy View PostThus my caveat.
Nevertheless, having a 10,000hr+ pilot in the left seat does, in this case, at least eliminate the "inexperience" conjecture that often follows crashes in this part of the world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Deadstick View PostI think he's closer to 15k hours from reports, but 15k hours of crap experience isn't worth 2k hours of great experience. Who knows what his experience encompasses? He was PIC and landed a brand new 737-800 in the water short of the runway. Other reports show no weather in the area, and a report from an eye witness in the terminal says he saw the whole event. Hard to make a case for bad weather and poor visibility if he's on mark.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leftseat86 View PostWell, why don't we see what the full investigation tells us.
And as for the brand new aircraft picking that precise moment, when the stressed out pilot was beginning his aborted landing in bad weather, to manifest its manufacturer's defect, I highly doubt it.
Someone pushed a wrong button.
Comment
-
Ok, let's take the speculation one step further.
Saying that the pilot screwed up is the easy part.
What could have been the mechanics of the accident in which a pilot, in relatively good weather and very good visibility conditions, with the runway insight just out there, would miss the runway end and "land" 2500 ft short?
I very much doubt that it would be CFIT.
I very much doubt it would be fuel lines blocked by ice like in the BA B-777 case in Heathrow. And it doesn't match what the pilot said.
The same goes for dual birds ingestion, like in US Air.
It doesn't look like Turkish either (by what the pilot said).
Did he just fell asleep on the steering-wheel?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostOk, let's take the speculation one step further.
Saying that the pilot screwed up is the easy part.
What could have been the mechanics of the accident in which a pilot, in relatively good weather and very good visibility conditions, with the runway insight just out there, would miss the runway end and "land" 2500 ft short?
I very much doubt that it would be CFIT.
I very much doubt it would be fuel lines blocked by ice like in the BA B-777 case in Heathrow. And it doesn't match what the pilot said.
The same goes for dual birds ingestion, like in US Air.
It doesn't look like Turkish either (by what the pilot said).
Did he just fell asleep on the steering-wheel?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post...Yet, in the Delta L1011 case, the plane that landed immediately before didn't feel a thing...
The plane landing immediately before 191 encountered severe turbulence and wind shear, but did not report it.
And while it seems that weather may be a big contributing effect here, the analysis is going to have to be in-depth much like Delta...and we know where that's going.
A plane encounters the strongest wind shear ever- but the findings are that they were a bit too reluctant to pull up on the yoke (in contrast to some of our more recent crashes with very aggressive pull ups through stalls)
Hey- it's getting rough- do I REALLY want to pull up really hard which can get you extremely close to stalling or keep some speed so I have control and good lift...Gabriel says it's better to crash under control than crashing short on lift in a fast descent with wings dropping with walloing limited control.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostIncorrect.
The plane landing immediately before 191 encountered severe turbulence and wind shear, but did not report it.
And while it seems that weather may be a big contributing effect here, the analysis is going to have to be in-depth much like Delta...and we know where that's going.
A plane encounters the strongest wind shear ever- but the findings are that they were a bit too reluctant to pull up on the yoke (in contrast to some of our more recent crashes with very aggressive pull ups through stalls)
The pilot flying of the Delta reacted to a split-second stickshaker with a high push force that put the plane in negative Gs, and then he did it again.
I don't think that this behavior can be described as "a bit too reluctant to pull up on the yoke".
While I have no problem with this... errr... technique... to recover from a stall in general, it is certainly not the good one when the ground is 100ft below you.
Hey- it's getting rough- do I REALLY want to pull up really hard which can get you extremely close to stalling or keep some speed so I have control and good lift...Gabriel says it's better to crash under control than crashing short on lift in a fast descent with wings dropping with walloing limited control.
Maybe you are used to some airplane with binary control (full up, full down), but in general there is a wide range of control column inputs available between the instrument panel and your chest. And we are not talking about one very precise input here. But there is no need to put the plane in negative Gs like Delta or push up aggressively like in Colgan.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
Comment