| ▲ | bradly 5 hours ago |
| > There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed. I don't know anything about flying. Is this normal? Doesn't sound like it, but I don't know why the pilots would not have used these things that sound useful. |
|
| ▲ | addaon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Take this with all the salt that random third-party guesses about a still-in-investigation event should be taken with -- think fully salt-cured ham -- but it looks like the landing was with a quartering tail wind, and the upwind (left) gear never really got weight on it; the wheel bogie needs to be straightened by weight against both the front and back wheels to register weight-on-wheel, and the auto-brake systems need positive weight-on-wheels from at least one redundant sensor on each of the three gear to engage. Came down hot, and basically skimmed with one wheel partially off the ground for some, most, or all of the way down the runway, preventing the braking systems from kicking in. |
| |
| ▲ | nomel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > think fully salt-cured ham I recently learned that you wash/soak the salt off before consuming it. So, are you talking pre or post wash? ;) Here's a neat video of an accurate reproduction, including a taste test after sitting "in a ship hold" for 7 months! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tWQpJ8kR5U | |
| ▲ | lokar 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | AIUI, they should never have gotten that far. They should have gone around at 1000 feet. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They should have gone around at 1000 feet They hit the ground at 158 knots. 767-300ER rotates at 130 to 160 knots. Given it had burned through its fuel, at the moment they touched down they could have immediately taken back off and gone around. Given the pilots braked at 146 kts, released at 120 kts to throttle up for G-A, then four seconds later ditched the G-A and re-applied brakes, this sounds like they got stuck between going around and committing to the landing and never quite did either. | | |
| ▲ | loeg 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They were in a bad situation long before they touched the ground and should have gone around even earlier. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | grepfru_it 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nothing prevented the pilots from applying speedbrakes. Nothing prevented the pilots from deploying spoilers. However the pilots were busy doing other things and, this is where your comment comes in, relied on automatic systems which require weight on the wheels | | |
| ▲ | psunavy03 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The problem occurred way behind that, when they refused to take a botched approach around. Everything else was just them doubling down on a bad decision over and over. |
| |
| ▲ | ajross 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Came down hot Really that's all that needs to be said at the moment. They had way too much energy[1], which anyone with flight sim or RC experience will recognize as a routine mistake when hand-flying. The question is why all (all!) the layers of checklists and warnings and process and ATC direction somehow failed in combination to prevent. Yeah, they should have aborted for sure, but they didn't, and we won't know why for a good while yet. [1] Which can just as easily mean "too high" as "too fast", c.f. the sink rate warnings in the logs which would be consistent with trying to squeeze the airplane down onto the runway. But again we won't know without more data. |
|
|
| ▲ | ofcrpls 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The lack of contact of the left wheels on the ground, which the Weight of Wheel sensor deployment depends on, as in both wheels being grounded, which the auto-speed brakes/thrust reversers depend on, worsened the whole situation as the crew seems to be unaware why they weren't losing speed after they'd 'landed'. Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did. |
| |
| ▲ | bronson 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | After applying the brakes for 8 seconds, they then went to full throttle to try get back in the air for four more seconds. That's bonkers. | |
| ▲ | Polizeiposaune 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Every single thing they could do wrong at, they did. There are just too many ways to screw up for that ever to be the case. For instance, they could also have been lined up to land on something other than the runway they were cleared to land on -- see Air Canada Flight 759, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759, which came within 14 feet of colliding with an aircraft on the taxiway they mistook for the runway.. |
|
|
| ▲ | bentcorner 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Someone who flew this exact airframe wrote that this plane "likes to float when empty, so if you’re not firm with putting it down, especially with those winds, it’ll just keep floating in ground effect." https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1w9jsrb/put_toget... I'm not a pilot but from my understanding there's a lot of failsafes to ensure things that slow the plane down only trigger when the plane is actually on the ground. Considering that the left gear touched down at 0:19 and pilot called for TOGA at 0:15 they didn't stand a chance. |
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Onavo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Depending on the plane they need the wheels to have sufficient weight on them first. Also strangely the flaps 30 and flaps 40 call outs do not match. |
| |
| ▲ | buildsjets 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The Boeing 767 does not have a Flaps 40 setting. The "Forty" callout was an automated annunciation of the radar-altimeter measured altitude above the runway. |
|
