Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sukhoi Superjet missing in Indonesia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The United States aye? I have briefly doffed my tin foil hat because this got my attention and what the voices were mumbling about was that it was the residual vestigial tailing of the Fuerzas Armada Liberacion Nacional, who grew tired of being number two in the five o'clock shadow of al-Queda.

    Remember, the Puerto Rican Nationalist group that held the #1 slot in air terror before 9-11 came along.

    I think it was in that movie Godfather, that "revenge is a dish best eaten cold". The nurse is coming; I hear the squeaky wheel of the med cart so back goes the helmet.

    On a more serious note, please refresh me on what the weather was at that altitude at the time of the incident? I am usually wrong but can't help but wonder about all of those things we are warned about as "noobies" regarding lenticular or mountain wave and the turbulent conditions as one approaches such an area and yes, I have one such encounter that seemed so innocent but almost proved fatal and as such it is hard for me to dismiss the effects of hills and mountains and wind. What was the old addage? Power is the force that gets you to the scene of the accident a bit quicker? Jet or prop, large or small, the sudden introduction of turbidity or a down draft .... what ever upsets the apple cart, the consequences may be severe and though seemingly rational at that moment, have an adverse effect.
    Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Call it what you will. It's still second-guessing the system in IMC. If you want to do that, because you feel certain that it is wrong, then climb out, verify your position, bring up the charts, be very certain of both, and then try it again. If you are in IMC and that warning goes off, and you maintain your flight path, you are nothing but arrogant. That's how I see it.

      If there isn't a checklist procedure for a suspected false EGPWS alert in IMC, there definitely should be one, and item #1 should be CLIMB until the warning ceases.
      I still think you're premature in attributing this to pilot hubris, Evan. Not that we can ever know the pilot's state of mind anyway (until they invent a third black box that records brain waves), but using your logic, pretty much any accident in the history of mankind could be blamed on arrogance, since we usually do the thing that causes the accident believing we are correct. That doesn't make us arrogant, it makes us wrong.

      We don't know, once the pilot turned towards the mountain and the alarm began to sound, what kind of margin he had to escape the situation. Nor am I convinced that climbing is in 100% of situations the way out of the problem. Maybe climbing will only result in you hitting the mountain higher up in some cases, whereas turning will get you out of harm's way. Remember, he thought he turned the right way when the alarm sounded, so now he has to figure out why the alarm is sounding, and he's headed straight for a mountain probably inside a monster cloud. It's a big jump to say that he concluded that he knew more than the airplane's systems, and that's why he crashed.

      Interestingly, there was also a co-pilot, a navigator(!), a test flight engineer, and a test flight deputy head on board. Not sure who was in the cockpit (though the above were all referred to as "crew"), but that could certainly add another dimension to this whole thing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
        I still think you're premature in attributing this to pilot hubris, Evan.
        Do I really have to put the word IF in bold type every time I post a hypothesis? I never claimed to know what happened here. I do know what happened to AirBlue 202 and a number of other incidents where the GPWS or TAWS was ignored, and that is what I'm referring to in my hypothesis.

        My position is this:

        - STICKSHAKER = GET THE NOSE DOWN (UNLESS TERRAIN IS AN ISSUE)

        - TERRAIN ALERT (UNLESS IN VFR) = CLIMB.

        These two instincts should be gospel by now. Why they aren't continues to fascinate me.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          - STICKSHAKER = REDUCE AoA (EVEN IF TERRAIN IS AN ISSUE)
          Fixed

          These two instincts should be gospel by now. Why they aren't continues to fascinate me.
          Do tell...

          --- 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 Evan View Post
            Do I really have to put the word IF in bold type every time I post a hypothesis? I never claimed to know what happened here. I do know what happened to AirBlue 202 and a number of other incidents where the GPWS or TAWS was ignored, and that is what I'm referring to in my hypothesis.

            My position is this:

            - STICKSHAKER = GET THE NOSE DOWN (UNLESS TERRAIN IS AN ISSUE)

            - TERRAIN ALERT (UNLESS IN VFR) = CLIMB.

            These two instincts should be gospel by now. Why they aren't continues to fascinate me.
            "If the EGPWS was issuing alerts, pilot arrogance seems to have played a major role here." I don't know if I'd call that a hypothesis, exactly, especially since when snydersnapshots offered an alternative explanation for why the pilot might have reacted inappropriately to the alarm (that did not involve pilot arrogance), you refuted him. No need to quibble over that one, though. I'd be more interested in hearing from others if terrain alert should necessarily = climb as you suggest. I'm leery of these absolutes, as you know, but then again, I'm not as black-and-white a thinker as a pilot...

            Comment


            • Even if a GPWS alarm goes off, it doesn't guarantee that you won't hit the hill. Particularly very steep hills. From the simulator, you get very very close to the hill before it commands a climb.

              An EGPWS should provide more terrain awareness, assuming it is fully up to date and correct.

              Terrain alerts have different responses based on the level of alert received, but basically FoF yes, the 100% correct, all the time, response is climb.

              But how about if you look down and your altimeters are showing you at 30,000ft in the cruise? Do you injure everyone down the back then?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MCM View Post
                But how about if you look down and your altimeters are showing you at 30,000ft in the cruise? Do you injure everyone down the back then?
                If you are anywhere near Mt Everest, then yes. If not, I'll give you that one. But anywhere near conceivable terrain (certainly they knew these volcanos existed), in blind IMC...

                I would think a well-seasoned pilot would first regain some altitude, then ask himself if he is possibly not where he thinks he is, or if terrain is present where it is not supposed to be. To blindly continue out of a sense of conviction alone is my definition of arrogance.

                It goes back to the AF447 argument...

                - If you follow the UAS procedures, you will not crash.

                - If you climb when the EGPWS alert comes on, you will not crash.

                There is definitely a time for black and white thinking.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fear_of_Flying View Post
                  "If the EGPWS was issuing alerts, pilot arrogance seems to have played a major role here." I don't know if I'd call that a hypothesis, exactly, especially since when snydersnapshots offered an alternative explanation for why the pilot might have reacted inappropriately to the alarm (that did not involve pilot arrogance), you refuted him.
                  I don't refute his explanation. I just think continuing a flight path in IMC in that situation is arrogance no matter the reason. By arrogance, I mean a conviction that you cannot be mistaken. If there is any doubt in your mind, you would first get some altitude and then verify your position. And yes, I am being hypothetical. For all we know, the pilot could have attempted to climb but could not do to some technical reason. I know nothing about the aircraft systems.

                  Comment


                  • The answer to Evan's hypothesis will be largely answered by time - specifically the time any (if any) GPWS warnings were activated and any action taken/collision.

                    The question of "what were they doing there" is an entirely different one.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                      In a CRM class I took, a situational awareness diagram we used had two circles, one labeled "Reality" and one labeled "Perceived Reality." The Perfect situational awareness is when the circles overlap completely. No SA is when the circles don't touch--i.e. the pilot's perception of reality doesn't match reality at all. I think that is what happened here. They guy THOUGHT he was clear of terrain. Unfortunately his Perceived reality circle didn't line up with the actual reality circle.
                      Is this an elective class? Considering that most of the pilot error crashes lately have something to do with bad SA, I'd like to see it become a mandatory thing. We've talked a bit about 'confirmation bias' on this forum, where the mind has a tendency to favor things that support a biased perception and dismiss things that go against it. There was some lengthy investigation into this phenomena in one of the accident reports. I can't recall just which one, but for some reason I think it was the 777 that went a bit haywire when the ADIRU failed without fault detection from the FCC. Or maybe it was a different incident... I'll try to dig it up.

                      What do they teach you to do in CRM to overcome this issue?

                      Comment


                      • I don't know if it is mandatory, but human error, confirmation bias, situational awareness, CRM, and others all fall under the title of "human factors", which most airlines and applciation authorities take very seriously these days.

                        --- 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 Evan View Post
                          - TERRAIN ALERT (UNLESS IN VFR) = CLIMB.

                          These two instincts should be gospel by now. Why they aren't continues to fascinate me.
                          not always correct and like fof said, may just result in hitting the mountain at a higher altitude.

                          unfortunately, life and flying are not always black and white no matter how much you want them to be. and let's not forget, you have ZERO time behind the controls of a real aircraft so your theories on flying are just that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                            unfortunately, life and flying are not always black and white no matter how much you want them to be. and let's not forget, you have ZERO time behind the controls of a real aircraft so your theories on flying are just that.
                            Right. Here it is from a guy with a few hours flying time...

                            Originally posted by MCM
                            Terrain alerts have different responses based on the level of alert received, but basically FoF yes, the 100% correct, all the time, response is climb.
                            Try to keep up, TeeVee.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I just think continuing a flight path in IMC in that situation is arrogance no matter the reason. By arrogance, I mean a conviction that you cannot be mistaken.
                              Being convinced that you are correct about something does not imply that you think you must be correct about it. It's human nature to on the one hand know that we are capable of making mistakes, while on the other hand believing that in this particular instance we are correct. I also have a hard time seeing how a top notch pilot can by nature be arrogant, because almost by definition, being a good pilot means having respect for the aircraft and your own limitations - aviation is unforgiving of mistakes.

                              In this particular instance, it doesn't seem that there was anything to show off or prove to anyone about his abilities or the aircraft, since they were evidently flying in an enormous cloud - nothing to see here, folks. To me, this seems like a terrible mistake - perhaps one that provided only the slimmest of margins to escape once it was made - that was handled inappropriately for any number of possible reasons. I think snydersnapshots characterization of "denial" as a state of mind is more apt a description of what is likely to have gone on here than arrogance.

                              Comment


                              • Citing an unnamed GRU general, the usually reliable paper Komsomolskaya Pravda writes that Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, suspects that US-inspired industrial espionage may have caused the May 9 crash in Indonesia of a Sukhoi Superjet 100 – Russia's only hopeful entry in the civilian aviation market.


                                blaming the USA, as usual...
                                Air crashes don't just happen... www.aircrash.ucoz.net

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X