ChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13440 times:
Swissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13391 times:
If you are talking about "careless" there would be the Aeroflot Airbus....
there are other ones I myself consider somewhat "careless" crews which resulted in fatalities and there is always the NTSB web site....
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13381 times:
I think the premise is sound, as the rate of crashes have declined as the technology in place to prevent crew from doing something wrong has grown more sophisticated. Other than bad maintenance, planes in the developed world are crashing now only when pilots make decisions the plane can't prevent them from making (or ATC screws up). Taking off/landing from the wrong runway, refusing to divert in bad weather, being vectored into each other, flying without a transponder, being spaced too closely by ATC.
If we can eliminate those mistakes, crashes of properly maintained aircraft would be nearly eliminated.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13374 times:
As long as it's not due tomorrow and you have a little time for some library research, try this:
1. Get a copy of the NTSB report on Air Florida 90 (737 taking off from DCA in a snow storm), which crashed in January 1982. It's available online and I'll re-edit this message once I find a link. Use it to get familiar with the accident. Then...
2. At the library, look up a couple magazine articles from later in 1982 (Oct or Nov, I think), in Science Digest and Psychology Today. Both magazines had articles related to airline safety and aeronautical decsionmaking, but one great article in particular was the one written by Robert Trivers and Huey Newton. Both guys were biologists, not aviation experts, and they discuss the crew aspects of the Air Florida accident in great detail, especially where it came to reality-evasion and self-deception.
I worked for Air Florida at the time, and knowing both pilots, I thought the observations in the Trivers/Newton article were spot-on. I think the article should be required reading for anyone connected with flight operations.
Jetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2984 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13377 times:
The American Airlines crash at Little Rock takes the cake for me.
The pilot was a real cowboy. Too bad he died.
Worked for too many airlines to list. Banktupcy after bankruptcy after bankruptcy.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13323 times:
Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 5): The American Airlines crash at Little Rock takes the cake for me.
The pilot was a real cowboy. Too bad he died.
I always saw that one as another example of the self-deceptive and reality evasive behavior I refered to previously.
Case in point, they're on approach and the RVR drops below landing minimums, and the F/O announces such. The captain says that they're inside the final approach fix and, indeed they are, and can continue the approach.
What this didn't consider was exactly what was causing the reduced visibility as expressed in RVR. If it'd been fog that was driving the reduced RVR, it'd have been no problem, but the RVR was being driven down by heavy rain from the thunderstorm cell attacking the airport from the northwest side. Put another way, it could have been RVR 3000 in ping pong balls or RVR 3000 in bowling balls, and one's no problem and the other is a big problem. By focusing on the RVR value itself and not what was causing it, the PIC saw want he wanted to see, and we know what happened...
Coronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1590 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13314 times:
The one that will always stick in my mind is the KAL flight in Guam back in AUG 1997 because our agency had two passengers on the flight that never came home...
On August 6, 1997, about 0142:26 Guam local time, Korean Air flight 801, a Boeing 747-3B5B (747-300), Korean registration HL7468, operated by Korean Air Company, Ltd., crashed at Nimitz Hill, Guam. Flight 801 departed from Kimpo International Airport, Seoul, Korea, with 2 pilots, 1 flight engineer, 14 flight attendants, and 237 passengers on board. The airplane had been cleared to land on runway 6 Left at A.B. Won Guam International Airport, Agana, Guam, and crashed into high terrain about 3 miles southwest of the airport. Of the 254 persons on board, 228 were killed, and 23 passengers and 3 flight attendants survived the accident with serious injuries. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire. Flight 801 was operating in U.S. airspace as a regularly scheduled international passenger service flight under the convention on International Civil Aviation and the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 1239 and was on an instrument flight rules flight plan.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
the captain's failure to adequately brief and execute the nonprecision approach and the first officer's and flight engineer's failure to effectively monitor and cross-check the captain's execution of the approach. Contributing to these failures were the captain's fatigue and Korean Air’s inadequate flight crew training. Contributing to the accident was the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) intentional inhibition of the minimum safe altitude warning system (MSAW) at Guam and the agency's failure to adequately manage the system.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9162 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13302 times:
Quoting NZ747 (Thread starter): hazardous crew attitudes that have compromised safety of the flight?
NZ747, I can think of three accidents offhand where 'hazardous crew attitudes' CONTRIBUTED to accidents. But they were not the SOLE cause - nor would one expect them to be, since virtually all accidents are found to have had multiple contributory causes.
A further complication is that there is almost always a big element of uncertainty as to what really happened, especially in 'all killed' accidents.
The three that immediately come to mind are:-
1. KLM/PanAm Teneriffe - impatience on the part of the KLM pilot. However contributing causes were fog, inexpert Air Traffic Control, and radio interference.
2. Aeroflot 593 - the pilot let his kids 'fly' the aeroplane. Contributing causes were thought to have been lack of a 'mode change' warning system on the autopilot and inadequate 'upset recovery' training.
3. American 587 - the 'pilot flying' (First Officer) was unhappy about following too close behind a 'heavy' that had just taken off, but the Captain told him to proceed; and they ran into wake turbulence. Other contributing causes are thought to have included pilot error, over-sensitive rudder controls, inadequate training, and (on recent evidence) possible weakening of the rudder structure due to chemical contamination.
If any of those three would fit your bill I'd be happy to look out details/links for you.
[Edited 2006-11-27 02:46:41]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Teneriffe77 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 426 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13275 times:
The 1974 Eastern DC9 accident at CLT is another example where the NTSB determined that the cause was "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the flightcrew’s lack of altitude awareness at critical points during the approach due to poor cockpit discipline in that the crew did not follow prescribed procedures." http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19740911-1&lang=en
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13234 times:
You could also consider Eastern Airlines Flight 401, an L1011 crash in the Florida Everglades outside of Miami, Florida in 1972. The crew were working together on a problem with an indicator light and lost track of the aircraft's altitude; by the time someone realized their mistake, they were less than 100 ft AGL and the plane crashed. A major contributing factor was a design flaw which allowed the autopilot to be disconnected on the copilot's yoke.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8557 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13176 times:
N702ML From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13155 times:
I recall one training class in Crew Resource Management when the crash of the Air Ontario F28 in snowy condition was discussed.....
The "attitude" of a commuting or deadheading pilot was that it was not his place to mention to the pilots that he thought there was snow/ice on the wings.
If I recall correctly, he survived and still testified that he would not have changed a thing about what he did: the pilot in command is the pilot in command and you do not question him or her.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8557 posts, RR: 14 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13092 times:
UN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4286 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13085 times:
Don't forget Pinnacle 3701, the only reason that plane went down was because the crew were "pushing it to the limit"
The CVR really attests to how laid back that cockpit sounded.
SSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13033 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8): 1. KLM/PanAm Teneriffe - impatience on the part of the KLM pilot. However contributing causes were fog, inexpert Air Traffic Control, and radio interference.
Yes.
The others that spring to mind are:
2) a NW ferry flight of a CRJ in which the two pilots (no passengers) tried, for fun, to take the A/C to it's absolute operational height. The engines flamed out and they were not able to be restarted for technical reasons that escape me. Both pilots perished. There is a very sad transcript of them realising their dilemma and trying desperately to get out of it. I suggest a google search.
3) I recall AC had a 767 run out of fuel about 20 years ago and glide to a landing on a closed airport runway because of confusion at fueling between kilograms and pounds. It landed at Gimli Industrial Park Airport (which I believe was being used that day for drag racing) under no power, so it was then nicknamed the Gimli Glider. However - I don't think that this can be fairly attributed to "recklessness." Besides, some pretty heroic flying saved the passengers.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9162 posts, RR: 37 Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12937 times:
NZ747, in case it helps, it looks as if 'impatience' is quite a frequent feature of such accidents. It's not often mentioned, but pilots are often chided by their alrines for not 'keeping to schedule', which is pretty hard on them since so many factors outside their control can lead to delays.
This factor is fairly clearly shown in the CVR transcripts of two of the accidents I mentioned:-
AA587 (HOT2 is First Officer, HOT1 is Captain) - if they'd waited a few seconds the accident might not have happened:-
0912:40
HOT-2 lights to go. I'm gonna make... left turn two twenty. go out the
Bridge five thousand feet's the top. if we have a problem, I'll
clean it up at six.... ten.... left traffic for this runway....
0913:05
TWR Japan Air forty seven heavy, fly the Bridge Cimb, contact New
York departure, good morning.
0913:10
JAL47 Bridge Climb, switch to departure, Japan Air four seven, good
morning.
0913:21
HOT-1 you have the airplane.
HOT-2 I got the brakes.
0913:22
HOT-1 I have the radios.
0913:27.6
TWR American five eight seven heavy, wind three zero zero at
niner, runway three one left, cleared for takeoff.
0913:31.7
RDO-1 cleared for takeoff, American ah, five eight seven heavy.
0913:35.3 HOT-2 you happy with that distance?
0913:38.5
HOT-1 aah, he's.... we'll be all right once we get rollin'. he's supposed
to be five miles by the time we're airborne, that's the idea.
0913:45.5
HOT-2 so you're happy. lights?
0913:47.1
HOT-1 yeah, lights are on.
0913:47.8
HOT-2 takeoff check's complete, I'm on the roll. thank you sir."
KLM 4805 (RDO is PanAm, APP is ATC) - if the Controller had given them their route clearance sooner, or just said 'Continue holding' after giving it - or if the pilot hadn't mistaken it for takeoff clearance - or if he'd responded in English instead of Dutch - or if ATC hadn't said 'OK' - or if there hadn't been a screech on the radio - there would have been no accident:-
"1705:44.8 KLM Uh, the KLM ... four eight zero five is now ready for take-off ... uh and we're waiting for our ATC clearance.
1705:53.4 APP KLM eight seven * zero five uh you are cleared to the Papa Beacon climb to and maintain flight level nine zero right turn after take-off proceed with heading zero four zero until intercepting the three two five radial from Las Palmas VOR. (1706:08.2)
1706:09.6 KLM Ah roger, sir, we're cleared to the Papa Beacon flight level nine zero, right turn out zero four zero until intercepting the three two five and we're now (at take-off). (1706:17.9)
ca. 1706:13 KLM-1 We gaan. (We're going)
1706:18.19 APP OK.
1706:19.3 RDO No .. eh.
1706:20.08 APP Stand by for take-off, I will call you.
1706:20.3 RDO And we're still taxiing down the runway, the clipper one seven three six. 1706:19.39 - 1706:23.19 RDO and APP communications caused a shrill noise in KLM cockpit - messages not heard by KLM crew.
1706:25.6 APP
APP Thank you
1706:32.43 KLM-3 Is hij er niet af dan? {Is he not clear then?}
1706:34.1 KLM-1 Wat zeg je? {What do you say?}
1706:34.15 KLM-? Yup.
1706:34.7 KLM-3 Is hij er niet af, die Pan American? {Is he not clear that Pan American?}
1706:35.7 KLM-1 Jawel. {Oh yes. - emphatic}"
Mav75 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 228 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12861 times:
Quoting Tg 747-300 (Reply 18): What about the Western DC-10 wher the crew started experimenting with the engines during cruise..
That was actually National Airlines flight 27 from MIA-SFO on 11/3/1973 .(DC-10-10 N60NA) The fan blades pierced the cabin and a passenger was killed. I think the poor guy was sucked out of the aircraft. They diverted to ABQ.
There was an infamous Western DC-10 crash though. It was flight 2605 (DC-10-10 N903WA) on October 31, 1979 from LAX-MEX. The aircraft mistakenly landed on a runway that was under construction and killed 72 people. IIRC, one of the contributing factors to this crash was a poor dynamic between the Captain and the F/O. The Captain was giving the F/O a hard time (about really stupid stuff) and the F/O basically clammed up and let the Captain crash the plane into construction equipment on the closed runway.
PHLJJS From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 412 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12836 times:
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 16): 3) I recall AC had a 767 run out of fuel about 20 years ago and glide to a landing on a closed airport runway because of confusion at fueling between kilograms and pounds. It landed at Gimli Industrial Park Airport (which I believe was being used that day for drag racing) under no power, so it was then nicknamed the Gimli Glider. However - I don't think that this can be fairly attributed to "recklessness." Besides, some pretty heroic flying saved the passengers.
That was actually Air Transat, not Air Canada. The pilots were hailed as heros, but not trusting the computers and warning signals in the cockpit that pointed out the fuel leak put them that position in the first place. National Geographic featured it on their "Air Emergency" series last year.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12816 times:
Quoting PHLJJS (Reply 22): That was actually Air Transat, not Air Canada. The pilots were hailed as heros, but not trusting the computers and warning signals in the cockpit that pointed out the fuel leak put them that position in the first place. National Geographic featured it on their "Air Emergency" series last year.
Actually, he's correct--the 767 at Gimli was Air Canada. The Air Transat was an A330 that dead-sticked into the Azores. Two separate incidents, with Air Transat being the more current of the two.
25 Lucky42: I think you mean National Airlines DC-10 over ABQ crew was determined to have caused #3 eng to overspeed and suffered an uncontained engine failure t
26 NAV20: PHLJJS, I think you're confusing the 'Gimli Glider' with the 'Azores Glider.' Further, in the latter case, I believe that the instruments warned of a
27 Jeffry747: Wasn't AF358 partially due to the pilots disagreeing whether or not to land the plane?
28 LongbowPilot: Another item that might be of interest for you.. Eventhough the airplanes today have modern marvels that keep the sometimes tired, weary, and cowboyis
29 EMBQA: The Delta 727 crash in DFW. The flight crew spent part of the pre-flight BS'ing with a Flight Attendent... forgot to set the slats for take of and cra
30 PHLJJS: Yes, you guys are right. Thanks for correcting me.
31 NAV20: No problem, PHLJJS. One thing I forgot to mention; the primary cause of the 'Azores glider' case was actually bad maintenance, not bad piloting:- "The
32 Mav75: I agree. Here is what happens when you stick to the topic at hand and not go off on half baked, flame baiting tangents. It was nice to participate in
33 Bill142: What about the Bashkirian Airlines 2937 and DHL 611 collision over germany. It would relate more to the attitudes at Sky Guide more so then the flight
34 Peh: This is interesting. I hadn't heard this. What's your source?
35 BCAL: Rather surprising that nobody has mentioned the crash of BEA’s (British Airways) Hawker Siddeley Trident 1C G-ARPI at Staines, near LHR, on 18 June
36 Wunala: have you tried http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...nvestigation_reports.aspx?mode=avi there are several ones that mention crew attitude, and how th
37 Flyfisher1976: Neither had I...where did you read this?
38 777236ER: You don't need to look any further than Pinnacle 3701.
39 FlyingColours: There was also the case of the British Midland 737-400 at EMA, The Kegworth Air Disaster. Although the crews attitudes were not really wreckless there
40 David L: Just to be picky, I think the confusion was between kilograms and litres.
41 OPNLguy: From aviation-safety.net: "They dripped the tanks and the flightcrew calculated the total amount of fuel by using 1.77 pounds/liter as the specific g
42 ChrisI1024: Black Box might give you some ideas.
43 NZ747: Thank you all so much for your help. The information provided has been very useful for my crm assignment. I have to illustrate hazardous attitudes wit
44 Nbgskygod: Another good one was the crash of a NEA F-27 in Hanover, NH. The crew decended lower than the reccomended altitude and struck Moose Mountain, killing
45 David L: Fair enough. I knew it was a conversion between weight and volume that caused the problem, rather than a direct conversion between metric and imperia
46 NAV20: It's recent information, guys, which was the subject of an urgent NTSB Safety Recommendation earlier this year. As briefly as I can put it, NTSB inve
47 NAV20: NZ747, other factors - probably contributing to the impatience/confusion - included diversions due to a bomb threat, fog, delays, taxiing mixups, etc
48 Lemurs: Funnily enough, I like reading NTSB reports. I've probably skimmed through a few dozen of the most interesting ones over the last 50 years, and the on
49 Flyfisher1976: Sorry to be nit picky...but to suggest: ...is a rather bold statement considering. The NTSB report does not list this as a contributing factor in thi
50 NAV20: Funny thing, FlyFisher - you could come on here and deny the existence of God, and get little or no reaction; but any suggestion that AA587 was cause
51 Flyfisher1976: Hardly an attack...I never said that it was 100% pilot error. There were several contributing factors, all of which are clearly listed in the NTSB re
52 Curmudgeon: Due respect and all, but there was no deadheading pilot on that flight. There was also the complicating factor of operating a scheduled jet service i
53 NAV20: NZ747, re-reading my #45, I realised that it wasn't very helpful to you in carrying out the assignment. I'm afraid that, in my view, the cause of KLM
54 OPNLguy: Might I ask what you base this statement on?
55 Curmudgeon: A more than passing intimacy with the details, and the memory of the funerals is still fresh too. There was an RCMP officer on board who was vocal abo
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 958 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1605 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9162 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 4919 posts, 
From Norway, joined Nov 1999, 1318 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jun 2003, 266 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
