Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Passengers Experience in The Crash Landing of Southwest 345
I read somewhere that technically what we experienced isn’t considered a crash landing, but in my mind when a plane hits the runway nose first, crushes the front landing gear, and skids 2,175 feet in a shower of sparks before stopping, it’s a crash landing. Our descent felt shaky, then without warning we hit the runway with a loud BANG. People whose seat belts were loose yelled in surprise as they were thrown into the seatbacks in front of them. (nickbradbury.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Just kinda like driving. I don't think anyone leaves the house expecting to go wreck their car.
But some, because it is beyond their scope of ability, intellect, or knowledge are destined to. Pilots are the same.
Gosh, I sure hope not. Everyone, EVERYONE makes mistakes. I just hope not while in control of a moving vehicle, be it auto, truck, boat, aircraft, surfboard, bike, etc.
Do you mean 'every one'?
General view on this forum is that only a certain class of people/pilots make mistakes, like Koreans/Asians/Orientals.
General view on this forum is that only a certain class of people/pilots make mistakes, like Koreans/Asians/Orientals.
The question is not whether people make mistakes, but whether they allow the mistakes to result in hull loss, loss of life and life-long disability, when they're in the pointy end.
How often do you come across with accidents where nature and quantum of damage is predetermined or precalculated ? Or do you mean that some cause it with prior knowledge or prior deliberations ?
Or I am not understanding what you mean?
Or I am not understanding what you mean?
You're looking at it all wrong.
Take the Asiana 214 flight as an example. Another crew could've also set the wrong FD mode or forgotten to couple the autothrottles. But it was the Asiana's pilots failure to monitor airspeed and altitude on final that allowed a simple mistake to reach catastrophic results.
A more proficient crew would've monitored the basics of flight on final approach, and would've caught the mistake in time to recover.
Can't forget to fly the plane.
Take the Asiana 214 flight as an example. Another crew could've also set the wrong FD mode or forgotten to couple the autothrottles. But it was the Asiana's pilots failure to monitor airspeed and altitude on final that allowed a simple mistake to reach catastrophic results.
A more proficient crew would've monitored the basics of flight on final approach, and would've caught the mistake in time to recover.
Can't forget to fly the plane.
Why philosophise a simple mistake of omissions and commissions. Or else how any accident happens? Because people make mistakes. road accident, fire accident and so on.
These pilots made mistakes. Every body knows. Including the lawyers likely to prosecute and judges likely to hear the case.
And do you mean, NO accident has been caused by a proficient pilot? Or do you mean, non proficient pilots ARE ALSO invited to fly, to cause accidents?
More proficient or less proficient! How do you define it? By accident ?
These pilots made mistakes. Every body knows. Including the lawyers likely to prosecute and judges likely to hear the case.
And do you mean, NO accident has been caused by a proficient pilot? Or do you mean, non proficient pilots ARE ALSO invited to fly, to cause accidents?
More proficient or less proficient! How do you define it? By accident ?
No, I'm Judy saying that a proficient pilot wouldn't have made that mistake. He or she would've made lots of visual approaches on beautiful clear days and wouldn't be confused of which settings to use.
In the alternative, a pilot who happened to make a setting mistake that was proficient would be monitoring airspeed and altitude, and would've caught and corrected the mistake.
Failing to monitor airspeed and altitude is nit a mistake. It is failing the minimum requirements for competent command of a large airliner with 300 souls.
In the alternative, a pilot who happened to make a setting mistake that was proficient would be monitoring airspeed and altitude, and would've caught and corrected the mistake.
Failing to monitor airspeed and altitude is nit a mistake. It is failing the minimum requirements for competent command of a large airliner with 300 souls.
In retrospect, the initial conclusion based on observations gathered from this forum is that the two pilots 'perhaps' got into an argument of sorts and failed to follow (grossly) the basics of VFR procedures like speed, height and approach angle(glide path) etc.
These guys might have been 'proficient' pilots on record but at the fateful moment, they failed miserably. And that is what matters in real life.
I am not an aviator. I am repeating what I learnt here.
These guys might have been 'proficient' pilots on record but at the fateful moment, they failed miserably. And that is what matters in real life.
I am not an aviator. I am repeating what I learnt here.
Without the cockpit voice recorder, I can't tell you with any certainty what they were doing or saying.
But based on the briefed and witnessed trajectory of the plane, I can tell you what they weren't doing - monitoring airspeed and altitude.
I can't say with any conviction whether they were arguing.
But, we can tell from the data that they were struggling to keep the plane lined up with the runway centerline. This struggle might've been the cause of the distraction or yet another symptom of whatever else was going on in there.
Until proven otherwise by facts, I will always choose the simplest explanation and most benign explanation.
Fatigue after a 10-hour flight is a strong possibility. Also, distraction could also be an issue. The beautiful view. Trying to line up the plane. Not feeling confident with visual approaches. Feel flustered. Setting a mode incorrectly. Not feeling confident in manual piloting skills. Not sure which is the correct flight mode. Switching repeatedly between modes. Leaving the FD mode set improperly.
Any and all of these can be part of the chain of events that led to a fatal crash.
There may it may not have been an argument. I have heard no evidence to that effect, apart from some baseless speculation on some FA thread. Baseless speculation by an experienced pilot is still baseless speculation until proven otherwise.
But based on the briefed and witnessed trajectory of the plane, I can tell you what they weren't doing - monitoring airspeed and altitude.
I can't say with any conviction whether they were arguing.
But, we can tell from the data that they were struggling to keep the plane lined up with the runway centerline. This struggle might've been the cause of the distraction or yet another symptom of whatever else was going on in there.
Until proven otherwise by facts, I will always choose the simplest explanation and most benign explanation.
Fatigue after a 10-hour flight is a strong possibility. Also, distraction could also be an issue. The beautiful view. Trying to line up the plane. Not feeling confident with visual approaches. Feel flustered. Setting a mode incorrectly. Not feeling confident in manual piloting skills. Not sure which is the correct flight mode. Switching repeatedly between modes. Leaving the FD mode set improperly.
Any and all of these can be part of the chain of events that led to a fatal crash.
There may it may not have been an argument. I have heard no evidence to that effect, apart from some baseless speculation on some FA thread. Baseless speculation by an experienced pilot is still baseless speculation until proven otherwise.
More than likely, LACK of argument based on social status, regardless of who should have been top dog in the cockpit.
That sounds more plausible.
Photo...I didn't know your name was Judy! I agree. Simply saying. If you can not hand fly and land an aircraft in perfect VFR conditions...especially with 300 souls onboard, either you go back to Basic Training and learn the fundaments of flying or find a different profession that won't put people in harms way.
F.Y.I.- after Asiana clipped the seawall...evidently a couple more asian airliners approaches came up short but they had the sense to go around.
F.Y.I.- after Asiana clipped the seawall...evidently a couple more asian airliners approaches came up short but they had the sense to go around.
Near miss or an accident !
Difference lies in how the concerned pilot/s make last second corrections !
No ?
Nice to know the names, Judy and Dee ! Judy - woman's name and Dee ? Pardon this Q
In my case, A.K., man's name, stand for Anil Kumar, first and middle names, Mittal - last name/surname/family name.
Er.? Like Dr. for doctors, Er. for engineers ! Interesting . No ?
Difference lies in how the concerned pilot/s make last second corrections !
No ?
Nice to know the names, Judy and Dee ! Judy - woman's name and Dee ? Pardon this Q
In my case, A.K., man's name, stand for Anil Kumar, first and middle names, Mittal - last name/surname/family name.
Er.? Like Dr. for doctors, Er. for engineers ! Interesting . No ?
ars ago. PILOT ERROR. Some countries never want to admit that their airlines could be at fault; it must be something else. Just watch Mayday on Discovery and d hope you are not a victim of pilot error. We still fly because we know aircrew doesn't want to die either and that air travel is by far the safest way.