Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a pilot (a mere private) and a licensed skydiver. I have never refrained from "speculating" about an accident's cause merely because the PC police decree that we should all defer to the alphabet agencies and wait for their findings. TWA Flight 800 rings a bell.
I'm still waiting for the NTSB to rule on the recent crash of a Bonanza here in northern Arizona that any pilot from this area already "knew" the cause of. Improper (as in too rich) mixture control at a high altitude airport by a flatlander pilot. But, we can all keep waiting for the "official" findings like good little peons.
Having read more than a few NTSB reports, I can predict some of the phraseology. The Boeing 777 "suffered substantial damage" and that "the pilot in command failed to . . . ." (even if the wings were falling off and the cockpit was engulfed in flames).
Oh, and as for the 44 hours in type by a 10,000 hour pilot. That's no big deal. My late father was a captain on a 747 and his first "real" flight was in a bird with paying passengers. Anyway, it seems pretty clear what happened, but something else happened. The how and why. But I won't "speculate" as to what that could have been.
Walk a mile in their mocassins. Have you ever survived a serious crash in an airliner? Didn't think so. People do crazy things when they're in shock. Like grab their carryon and go down the evacuation slide.
People in a panic do stupid sh.t, agreed.
However, the attitude that got me a tad hot under the collar was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom
Whats up with the criticism of the people carrying their bags off the plane, every time there is an incident like this? Who in their right mind would deliberately leave their bags on a burning plane, if they had the opportunity to take them and take them with them? Many of the people probably had their passports in their bags.
I don't pretend to be a pilot but it appears to me that the 777 pilot was too low, too slow, landed short of the run way, and that the other three pilots present watching all this could see that the sight picture that should have been developing out the wind screen to the point of touch down just was not happening.
I'm not an aviation expert, but with all of the pilots being able to be interviewed after the crash (aka they didn't die), the NTSB already knows exactly what happened. Everything points to pilot(s) error.
They need dot their i's and cross their t's so Boeing, SFO, and others can't be held liable and the public will feel safe again about flying. Just my outside view
I have been reading this a lot, about how well the plane held together. Am I the only one who doesn't see this?
First, the tail section that bore the brunt of the impact, totally disintegrated. The back of the cabin severely crumpled (all most pancaked) trapping some passengers. Many of the escape slides seemed to be defective. The fuselage broke/bent in at least two places. And worst of all, the skin seemed to melt unbelievably fast.
I will give it points for the seats staying attached to the floor, even in the parts of the plane that had the most damage, and the fire burned slow enough to give time for all passengers to escape.
But over all I think if you look at enough take off / landing crashes, there is nothing remarkable about how well this aircraft held together. IMHO.
For comparison, view the video of the UA DC-10 at Sioux City in 1989.
the NTSB already knows exactly what happened. Everything points to pilot(s) error.
Repeated for clarity
Quote:
I'm not an aviation expert
According to the pilots' accounts, the tensions started before the plane touched ground.
The three pilots in the cockpit -- another was in the cabin -- told investigators they set the "auto throttle" speed to 137 knots (157 mph), which is the speed it should have been going. Akin to cruise control, auto throttles are used to maintain a plane's speed.
At 200 feet above ground, the instructor pilot said he noted precision approach path indicator lights indicated the giant jet was too low.
It was then "he recognized that the auto throttles were not maintaining speed, and he established a go-around attitude," said the NTSB chief. "He went to push the throttles forward, but he stated that the other pilot had already (done so).
Hersman cautioned anyone from jumping to conclusions as to whether a mechanical or pilot error is to blame for the crash. She also spoke specifically about the auto throttles, saying investigators were delving into how they were working and how they were used."
I've been researching the auto-thrust system for the 777 and found a description online. I can't post a link, but if you Google "777 thrust levers" it is the first result - a smartcockpit.com PDF file. There is a Hold Mode for the autothrust which apparently allows the pilot to control thrust manually while the autothrust is still engaged. Also speed protection (automatic increase in thrust to prevent stall) is disabled in Hold Mode. And if the plane is descending in "VNAV SPD" Mode, the autothrust is in Hold Mode, meaning that although the autothrust is on, the pilot must manually increase the thrust. So, a potential scenario of a pilot expecting the autothrust to increase when in fact it is up to him to do so.
Again, pure speculation on first reading of the system. I'll read it again tomorrow maybe to try and understand it better. Just thought I'd post for anyone else that may be interested.
There is also growing speculation about the cultural hierarchical situation being a possible cause, because of a couple of their accidents 25 years ago.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in the 1970s I trained Korean Air Line pilots who lived by this hierarchical situation in the cockpit and we had to train them to overcome that situation and learn to use the crew concept of cockpit management. I don't know, some 40 years later, if their training includes crew concept procedures today, or if they are still operating under the old system of not being able to correct your superior.
I find this a bit terrifying. So, for instance, a co-pilot wouldn't question it if he noticed the plane was about to stall if the pilot didn't agree?
The conclusion that you make is not the conclusion that the article makes. The author is only "conjecturing" as to what may have happened based on the small amount of information available.
[/i]
I think you're over-reacting skipper, but my words were not as well-chosen as they should have been, you're right. It is, nevertheless, an interesting and pretty factual analysis of publicly available data that the press ignores, or distorts, in favor of a hot story. It shows what happened on the approach, not why. The causes of the rapid rate of descent, just prior to the landing, combined with the reduced power that put them where they were, when they were, in the last 30 seconds or so before impact need to be discovered; you're right about that. What this analysis shows is that the 777 was in the wrong place at the wrong time with no resources left to recover.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway, it seems pretty clear what happened, but something else happened. The how and why. But I won't "speculate" as to what that could have been. 
Put my oar in
