|Quoting rlx01 (Reply 35):|
Maybe we're being a little too quick to blame the pilots. Anything could have happened in the 7 seconds. Stick shaker at 4 seconds is leaving it a little too late.
Actually, I find the pat "it's too early to consider pilot error" comments we always get during these crash threads to be "too quick." The number one cause of aircraft crashes is pilot error. Either completely the fault of the pilots, or pilots reacting incorrectly to adverse conditions. Mechanical failure can be a contributing factor, but many crashes need not have happened even when mechanical failure happens.
But more to the point: if the leading cause of crashes is pilot error, why are so many people more willing to assume mechanical problems until otherwise proven wrong? To protect the human pilots from blame and deflect it to the machine? But aren't those machines also built and designed by humans, maintained by humans, etc. and by attempting to protect pilots, aren't we putting blame onto others who may be just as innocent (and more likely so, considering the odds)?
Aircraft are designed with multiple failsafe mechanisms, where even if things go very wrong, they can be landed by pilots who "do it right". The hudson landing, the BA
landing at LHR
, the A380 landing, gimli glider, etc. Good airmanship can overcome a lot. And poor airmanship can take what should be an incident report and turn it into a tragedy.
|Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 66):|
From the data on Flightaware - it appears that a B777 landed on 28L. Next was an Embraer 120 19 seat turbo-prop. That was the plane were passengers reported 'unusual turbulence'. I have not seen anything that the Skywest pilots reported turbulence.
Landing in a TP
is often a scary experience to passengers and it can feel like you are being tossed around. Doesn't mean that there was severe turbulence involved. Just a very light aircraft dealing with normal conditions.
|Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 109):|
From auto racing, studies have found that the shredding of parts from race cars like F-1/ Indy Cars takes significant amounts of kinetic energy from the main body. As much as 25-40% in some crashes.
|Quoting Boeing747_600 (Reply 138):|
To be precise, magnetic heading divided by 10 with nearest integer roundoff. The local variation (difference between MAG and TRUE headings) changes with time and hence do runway numbers. IAH's 15/33s used to be 14/32s until the late 90s.
Unless there are parallel runways that have too much separation or number more than 3, in which case some are rounded up and some down, as in the case of LAX
On visual, if the runway is within 20 degrees of the true heading and you turn to it, you will easily see it and can line up.
|Quoting virgin744 (Reply 145):|
Trying to get my head around how 1 of the deceased possibly got run over by an emergency response vehicle. Only plausible explanation would be the vehicle driver mistaking/thinking them as debris..
Sad if this ends up being the case that they were killed by the emergency response vehicle and not the plane crash itself.
Same way beach patrol drives over sunbathers and kills them. Because they are focused on large, urgent things in the distance and not entirely on what is directly in front of them. It's a tragic part of human nature.