| ▲ | wanderingmoose 4 hours ago |
| I think the real question is why didn't the pilots do a go around. I bet there are underlying pressures from the airlines and/or amazon to not do a go around to avoid schedule delays or fuel costs. |
|
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I've never heard of anything even close to this. Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not. Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain with the FAA. On cargo flights in particular timing and fuel usage are less critical than passenger flights, and a go around doesn't affect either much. Pressure to avoid go arounds would also be incredibly counter productive since go arounds exist to preserve life and property. Pilots do go arounds to avoid costly incidents. You are correct that the question is why they didn't do a go around, but I would bet a large sum of money that airline pressure to avoid go arounds was not a factor. |
| |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety... > The Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo plane that crashed off a Miami runway on Sunday, killing five people, was operated by a North Carolina company that has been accused by past employees of violating safety regulations, legal documents reveal. There's a lot in the article, but this allegation is worth highlighting: > Seuring's attorney, Michael Anello, told the judge that another 21 Air pilot, Johnny Salmonson, "was being pressured to fly in periods of time that were too short to comply with the proper amounts of rest, and that implicated safety. The layovers were too short." | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ahh, so the Amazon delivery contractor squeeze but the air cargo version, with the air cargo corporate entity shielding Amazon from liability. | | |
| ▲ | myself248 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We'll see if the NTSB mentions piss bottles in the cabin. | | |
| ▲ | throw1923847 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't really see how it's possible since the plane probably has a lavatory for the pilots. | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin an hour ago | parent [-] | | Maybe those were taken out so that the plane was capable of carrying more packages. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MBCook 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Get-there-itis is absolutely a thing. No big airline would be dumb enough to say it that stuff explicitly but the pressures still exist. There have been accidents around the world where pilots were trying to save fuel, get off work at a normal time instead of 2 hours extra holding, not wanting to divert and not be home, try to get on the ground so they don’t go over their max hours for the day, etc. Yes it’s counterproductive. *It happens*. External or internal, it happens. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Get-there-itis is - quite famously - a pilot's internal desire (note: written before your ninja edit). Sure there have been plenty of incidents. Can you point to one in the US, with pilots flying big planes, that hasn't led to regulatory change? Its worth pointing out that pilots are almost always paid by flight hour. In other words, they get paid more to go around. |
| |
| ▲ | whycome 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There have already been crashes where one contributing factor was pressure to land and avoid any kind of delay - even if risky.
Remember that pressure doesn’t need to be explicit. It can be the result of all kinds of factors - including physical. Maybe they were already late and pilots with fewer “on time” arrivals are lower in line for promotions. We already have stories from Amazon delivery drivers and it’s not insane to think some of that culture has leaked through to other aspects. | |
| ▲ | jtchang 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Southwest airlines had a culture of turning around fast at the gate. So maybe no explicit policy but culture can drive unintended consequences and decisions. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fast gate turnarounds have nothing to do with what happens in the cockpit. That affects the cleaning crews. Take a look at Southwest's safety record. I believe they have 1 fatality due to an air incident in their history due to an uncontained engine failure that was not related to maintenance. | | | |
| ▲ | waterTanuki 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Turnaround at a gate and a life-or-death go-around judgement are two entirely different operations governed by entirely different sections of the FAA. Also this was Amazon, not Southwest. | | |
| ▲ | sxde 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the point being made is that time-pressure can come from a company's culture, not just its (unspoken) policies. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, Construction companies in the US do not pressure employees to get shit done. Construction workers do not delegate the decisions to work in sketchy circumstances, especially since OSHA holds them accountable for all that. See how silly that sounds? They cook up the rules to be all compliant and whatnot and then everyone breaks them a little pretty often and in tasteful ways in order to actually get the job done. If you get caught or screw up, it's on you. I assume this sort of pressure happens a lot less with pilots because of the cost of screw ups but there's still probably some implied pressure there. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The only thing silly is comparing the construction industry to the airline industry. Construction is pretty notorious for openly encouraging unsafe work environments, airlines are not. Airlines are much more tightly bound by the FAA than any construction company is to any regulatory agency. Airlines have to get permission to let their pilots read documents off an iPad instead of paper, for example. It just isn't a good comparison to compare the most safety aware industry on earth to one famous for ignoring safety rules. I've worked construction. I have a pilots license in multiple countries (including the US). They aren't the same. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pilot gets more veto power than the crane guy who gets more veto power than the residential concrete crew but they all still get talked to if they can't get their jobs done. I didn't say the same. I said the pressure was probably there too. But you can construe it as the former because that's a way easier thing to argue with. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fair enough. I assume that since the NTSB database makes every single incident investigation public you can point to at least one instance where an ATP was pressured into avoiding a go around? | | |
| ▲ | twisteriffic 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean... The problem is common enough that there are industry specific terms to describe it. Go search that database for "commercial pressure" and I'm certain you'll find what your sealioning self is demanding from everyone else. |
| |
| ▲ | wbl an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is one thing an airline never wants to have happen and it is a fatal accident. Everything else is secondary. Having one caused by corporate policy would lead to mass exodus of passengers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sidewndr46 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The same FAA that lets Boeing certify its own planes? |
|
|
| ▲ | dmazzoni 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is based on my understanding from several pilots who have weighted in. The cockpit voice recorder transcript has the copilot repeatedly saying "we're coming in too fast" but the pilot never clearly acknolwedges. The copilot ought to have been more assertive and said "We need to go around. NOW." The pilot shouldn't have needed that. He should have made the call himself, but even if he was unsure, once his copilot called that he should have done the right thing. Neither of them will ever fly again. The only question now is if either of them will go to prison. There's already a civil wrongful death lawsuit against them. |
|
| ▲ | randerson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In one of the videos you can see dark clouds behind the plane. I suspect the pilots knew they'd have to divert to a different airport if they couldn't land and put pressure on themselves to not have to do that. |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You can go around and try again at the same airport long before you have to divert. |
|
|
| ▲ | jmward01 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I suspect the pilots knew it wasn't a great approach but it just didn't click how bad it was. They just felt committed to the approach and thought they could 'fix it' without realizing how bad things really were. Having good enough situational awareness that you wave off when you are supposed to generally means that you also aren't wildly off speed/other parameters. They clearly had lost situational awareness. The thing that amazes me about this is the timeline here: 00:30 The nose and right main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots. ... 00:19 The left main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 134 knots. 00:15 A pilot called for a go-around. 11 seconds and 24 knots after the nose touched down and then the left main finally also touched down? Wow. Then 4 seconds after all that the go-around. It is one thing to hold the nose off for that long, but a main mount?! |
| |
| ▲ | loeg 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How did they ignore the descent rate and speed? They were absolutely diving at the ground. It's just such an elementary mistake. |
|
|
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | cadre_78 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Bingo. |
|
| ▲ | bayarearefugee 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | Twirrim 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The branding on the plane is Prime Air, but it's not actually Amazon owned and run. Instead it's a cargo airline (21 Air) that they contract with to operate cargo flights with Prime Air livery on the planes. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the NTSB investigation, they're usually quite thorough. | | |
| ▲ | psunavy03 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | CH Robinson, though, just lost a lawsuit at the Supreme Court with similar premises. They are a freight forwarder and third-party logistics outfit that contracts large amounts of capacity with subcontractors (airlines, trucking companies, shipping lines, etc.) and sells a complete package to their clients. One of CHR's service providers was conducting hiring shenanigans and not fully, legally screening their drivers. One of the service provider's drivers hit another vehicle and crippled that vehicle's driver, who sued. CHR argued all liability should fall on the trucking company who hired the driver. The Supreme Court said no, CHR could be held liable for negligence in vetting their service provider as well, because it was ultimately CHR's load being carried. I'm not a lawyer, but under that legal precedent, it seems Amazon might not be off the hook for damages in this case, given it was their subcontractor who was carrying Amazon cargo in a jet with "Prime Air" on the side. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | pseudosavant 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Could a company that won't let delivery drivers stop to pee possibly be pushing their pilots that hard? Yes. Yes, they could. |
