Originally published at: NTSB: Amazon Crew Not Given Wind Information
Preliminary report details a long, fast landing, repeated cockpit speed warnings and an attempted go-around before the accident that killed five.
Sure, that might somewhat contribute to the problem, but I’m sure that the crew was required to acknowledge receiving the ATIS, as well as monitoring their own ground speed over the numbers.
I see the one item that covers the situation - Not knowing the history of the speed brake. I was a B
I see the one item that covers the situation - Not knowing the history of the Bowing speed brake. Originally it was always used manually! If that had remained the Capt would have pulled it manually at the touchdown of any wheel to the runway. Instead in the automatic deployment position it never deployed because the gear squawt switches never agreed to the automatic deployment! Now see if the delay allowed engine spool down, etc.
ss
The article really is an example how bad journalism has become
Trying to spin a bias and make a huge issue out of a single minor error while ignoring multiple egregious errors.
Leading and focussing on the least relivent factor and downplaying the most relivent.
Yes ATC failed to issue a wind statement.
It does happen regularly at busy airports, but it had also given to multiple other aircraft
And that information is always available to the crew from the automated system and 3 different instruments in the aircraft easily seen.
And you ignore the 11 regulations the crew intentionally ignored requiring the abandoning of the approach and landing
Those 11 regulations the crew ignored are specifically to prevent this type of accident.
They were not simply warmed of excessive speed.
No wonder no one trusts “news” these days with such dishonest reporting
That didn’t have anything to do with it. I was a destable approach from the get-go and nobody thought that was unsusal ?
Boeing taught ‘fly the numbers’, did a study showing that greatly reduce problems.
Boeing used Pacific Western Airlines as an example - quite successful operating B737 on short runways including winter conditions. Captain Revel was a good leader as Chief Pilot.
(An article may be findable from archives of Boeing’s flight operations oriented magazine of decades ago.)
Looking at the groundspeed versus airspeed chart in the report the tailwind contributed about two to three knots to the ground speed. That is trivial and inconsequential compared to the roughly 30 knots of excessive airspeed that they had well before and just after crossing the runway threshold. They had perhaps a minute or more to see the obvious unstable approach and go around.
This was an egregiously poor approach and the outcome is 100% attributable to the two pilots.
My airline routinely flew into uncontrolled airports, so there aren’t any tower controllers to tell you anything. SOP’s are written so that certain limits must be memorized and obeyed. They not only help keep you safe, but they also keep you out of the Chief Pilot’s office having to explain yourself. It is always just easier and less hassle to follow the SOP.
Yeah, I knew this was coming. It wouldn’t have made any difference if winds were reported. It was an unstable approach all the way down until they went off the runway and a wind check would have done nothing to save that approach with a normal landing. I’m sure the lawyers will be all over this.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.