http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varig_Flight_254

While some credit goes to the flight crew for making a pretty good off airport landing in the Amazon jungle, their reason for flying the wrong way and getting lost while listening to a football (soccer) match gets them on the list of stupidest reasons for crashing an airliner...

While this is a dark topic, what other crashes should go on this sad list?

I nominate Eastern 401. It wasn't the crew's stupidity that completely caused it, but they didn't pay attention to their altitude until it was too late.

A bit of a morbid topic, but here we go.

I think Pinnacle 3701: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Airlines_Flight_3701 .

It was a ferry flight and the flight crew decided to do some novel things they wouldn't normally do - like FL410. A dual engine flameout later (plus an unwillingness to divert while they could) and they lost their lives. RIP.

Quoting a321luke (Reply 1): I nominate Eastern 401. It wasn't the crew's stupidity that completely caused it, but they didn't pay attention to their altitude until it was too late.

I wouldn't class this with the others. Eastern 401 was a watershed moment in CRM. Before that we didn't really comprehend the dangers of a multi-crew cockpit. This was an accident borne out of an immature system, not due to any gross negligence of the crew.

Colgan in BUF. I'm a pilot private. I still don't understand why they did what they did to worsen the situation. I'd also add Air Florida 90. And of course Aeroflot a310.

GP Express Beech 99 at Shelton NE
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19930428-0

Plane struck the ground during a deliberate barrel roll

I agree that EA 401 should not go on this list. The crew was not the only one let a possible landing gear problem distratct them from "aviating".

How about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPA_Flight_3142

It's one thing to fail to configure the aircraft for take off, quite another to ignore the warning horn.

Lets add NW 255 the MD80 at DTW...not settling the flaps for takeoff?? pretty dumb.

AV 52 comes to my mind:

http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=3&LLID=70

AF 447... I saw a show on it yesterday .. when the main pilot left, the trouble with the air indicator tube freezing started, which they said was a temporary problem and it would have cleared up on it's own. The relief pilot , according to the show, after the trouble started with the auto pilot shutting off, ended up trying to push the nose down and the second officer was pushing the nose up, cancelling each other out and continuing the stall. By the time the main pilot came back and said to puch the nose down, it the plane was at 2000 feet and they couldnot recover.

Asiana 214. Anytime all pilots ignore the most basic parameters because they think the computer is taking care of them it pretty much defines stupid.

From the crashes I've heard of Aeroflot 593 and Air France 443 stand out for me in terms of crew stupidity. I especially dislike the fact that some folks tried to blame the excellent Airbus design philosophy for the accident rather than the fact that the relief pilot was just stupid.

Did the pilots survive the crash?

All 6 crew survived.

I definitely agree with AF447. Seems pretty basic that in a stall you don't continue to raise the nose.

How about UA173? Flying around the airport and making a decision to continue to circle after being warned by your engineer that there was less than 15 min of fuel remaining.

Quoting eal46859 (Reply 9):

Quoting airplan727 (Reply 14): I definitely agree with AF447. Seems pretty basic that in a stall you don't continue to raise the nose.

I must absolutely agree that AF447 is on this list. I believe CRM was advanced enough at this stage (2009) and this is a flaw within the Airbus flight control system. Please note that I am not bashing on Airbus, I am simply pointing out that the design allowed this error to happen. Sure, the pilots are trained and knowledgable, but with the stress of managing the situation on-hand and being actively attentive to alerts (since so many alarms and sounds were going off during the problematic time period) it is easy to forget the cancelling out factor of the pilot and first officer's control sticks (forgive me for not using the correct terminology if not correct). I think this is where a Boeing flight control system would have helped since both pilots feel each other's movements of the stick. Again, I am not bashing Airbus's design, please don't take it that way. The pilot lifting the nose failed to understand the simple concept of aerodynamics and relied too much on the computer systems and of course, not being open in communication.

Quoting benjjk (Reply 2): I wouldn't class this with the others. Eastern 401 was a watershed moment in CRM. Before that we didn't really comprehend the dangers of a multi-crew cockpit. This was an accident borne out of an immature system, not due to any gross negligence of the crew.

It's funny you mention CRM. I'm taking my CRM course this semester and the professor mentioned that a "stupid accident like Eastern 401" could have been avoided if the crew followed correct CRM procedures.

EA 401 doesn't belong in this thread. However, EA 212 does. During an instrument approach into CLT in dense fog, the crew were discussing politics and used cars. They also were looking for a nearby amusement park attraction as a reference point during the approach. No altitude callouts were made either.

Probable cause:

Quote: The flight crew's lack of altitude awareness at critical points during the approach due to poor cockpit discipline in that the crew did not follow prescribed procedure.

Sterile cockpit rules were developed due to the accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_212

I just watched the air crash episode on Colgan 3407. It's so frustrating how two professional pilots made such a dumb and easy mistake. All they had to do was nose down full throttle and they would had been fine just like you learn on your first few PPL lessons. Or just monitor the airspeed to begin with. Nuts.

I recall reading a synopsis of private aviation accident in one of the flying magazines involving a guy and a girl. After the plane crashed, they found evidence that the copilot's seat had been laid back and both bodies were in varying stages of undress. It was ultimately determined they were having intercourse when they lost control of the plane, crashed, and thus died as a result.

Quoting a321luke (Reply 16): It's funny you mention CRM. I'm taking my CRM course this semester and the professor mentioned that a "stupid accident like Eastern 401" could have been avoided if the crew followed correct CRM procedures.

Of course it could've been avoided, but the concept of CRM as we know it today was not around in the 1970s. Under that logic, there are countless accidents that could've been avoided using information not available to crews at the time.

Quoting 777stl (Reply 19): I recall reading a synopsis of private aviation accident in one of the flying magazines involving a guy and a girl. After the plane crashed, they found evidence that the copilot's seat had been laid back and both bodies were in varying stages of undress. It was ultimately determined they were having intercourse when they lost control of the plane, crashed, and thus died as a result.

Not surprisingly, this happened in Florida.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 20): Not surprisingly, this happened in Florida.

That's what I had thought, but wasn't sure.

This thread is a bit ridiculous. Hind sight is 20/20 in most of these cases and none of you were in these situations. I for one am not perfect and would not be sitting here saying what I would do in these situations. Especially when some of you admit you are private pilots.

Aviation has changed a lot since some of these accidents and most brought awareness to things that needed changing in the industry, CRM is a great example. In some cases, at the time, questioning the Captain was a career ending decision.

Don't be to quick to criticize the crews of these accidents just because you have the freedom to do it now and know the findings from these situations. Just be glad that your flying careers are better now because of these incidents!!!!

Quoting benjjk (Reply 2): It was a ferry flight and the flight crew decided to do some novel things they wouldn't normally do - like FL410. A dual engine flameout later (plus an unwillingness to divert while they could) and they lost their lives. RIP.

It also uncovered something that GE had hidden from the aviation community's eye-the potential for a condition called "Core Lock", which had been experienced by GE test pilots on the CF-34. The crew had no idea why the engines wouldn't re-light, and although the events leading up were highly unprofessional (to say the least), if they had known about core lock before experiencing it, it probably would have saved their lives 

Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 7): Lets add NW 255 the MD80 at DTW...not settling the flaps for takeoff?? pretty dumb.

What makes this accident tragic is that the pilots forgetting to set the flaps was the cause of a LH Boeing 747 (D-ABYB) on take-off from Nairobi, Kenya, in November 1974.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Wolodymir Nelowkin

Quoting boeingguy26 (Reply 15): I think this is where a Boeing flight control system would have helped since both pilots feel each other's movements of the stick

Only one crew member should have his hands on the controls at any given time, Boeing or AB. That's pretty basic. Also, yokes/sticks are not flight instrumentation and should not be consulted by the crew to determine how the aircraft is flying. Anyway, in a Boeing A/C one guy pulling and one guy pushing would have produced the same effect.

Quoting boeingguy26 (Reply 15): I am not bashing on Airbus

I'll have to take your word for that as your post is not consistent with the statement.

I nominate United 173: The DC-8 crashed near Portland, OR in 1978 due to fuel starvation.
To run out of fuel while circling an airport is unspeakably irresponsible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 22): This thread is a bit ridiculous. Hind sight is 20/20 in most of these cases and none of you were in these situations. I for one am not perfect and would not be sitting here saying what I would do in these situations.

I am sorry you feel that the thread is worthless. Perhaps I did not explain the point very well. It was not to apply 20/20 hindsight to common accident causes such as CFIT; it was to discuss truly egregious situations. (Such as flying 180 degrees in the opposite direction of course while listening to a ball game). It was not to make light of the tragic loss of life in these accidents. In fortunately very rare instances, experienced pilots will make errors that beggar belief and I felt that is worthy of discussion. My apologies in not wording the thread title more carefully.

Quoting 802flyguy (Reply 27): it was to discuss truly egregious situations. (Such as flying 180 degrees in the opposite direction of course while listening to a ball game).

Reading the report of this incident it barely mentions the fact they were listening to the ball game. The primary reasons for this incident was the Captain interpreting the flight planned heading/track wrong and it was exasperated by the FO not following SOP and setting his HSI off the Captains side. SOP was for the FO to set his HSI off the flight plan also, which may have caught the Captains error.

This is a great example of why SOPs are in place and need to be followed. Making it sound like the aircraft crashed because they were listening to a ball game is incorrect, it may have caused them to miss some radio calls but gross navigational was the reason.

Quoting boeingguy26 (Reply 15): The pilot lifting the nose failed to understand the simple concept of aerodynamics and relied too much on the computer systems and of course, not being open in communication.

I think you can leave Airbus out of it. Even the 2nd ranked pilot at a point where they could save the aircraft said he was taking over controls, and the lowest pilot on did not let go.

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 22): This thread is a bit ridiculous.

Yes and no. Could we have said what we would do in a situation like they (anyone of the incidents listed) were in? Obviously not, but we can point out glaring errors:

- Sex on the plane with no one piloting
- Trying to listen to the radio
- Not having a sterile flight deck
- Putting your kids in control

In three of those examples, the people in command agreed to a social (and work) to take charge of others lives. The other was just plane stupid.

In the AF447 and Asiana examples, what you have is crews that did not follow what is presented in initial training of becoming a private pilot and yet had many thousands of hours in their logbooks.

We are ok to second guess, it's how we learn.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 23): It also uncovered something that GE had hidden from the aviation community's eye-the potential for a condition called "Core Lock", which had been experienced by GE test pilots on the CF-34. The crew had no idea why the engines wouldn't re-light, and although the events leading up were highly unprofessional (to say the least), if they had known about core lock before experiencing it, it probably would have saved their lives

Core lock wasn't why that aircraft crashed though. They didn't follow the proper relight procedure when attempting to restart the engines. One of the engines was probably trashed and wouldn't have restarted anyway, but it's thought that the other one probably could have been restarted if the procedure had been properly followed.

At any rate, they were in gliding range of several airports. They could have, in theory, dead sticked it in. However, they panicked with the relight procedure and by the time they realized they had other options, they had lost too much altitude and weren't capable of making it anywhere.

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 8): AV 52 comes to my mind:

I disagree with this, there was a language barrier because the pilots we're not native English speakers and they thought that they had requested the utmost urgency to land. The controllers just thought they we're getting close. Not a dumb reason, just a communication error.

Quoting 777stl (Reply 19): I recall reading a synopsis of private aviation accident in one of the flying magazines involving a guy and a girl. After the plane crashed, they found evidence that the copilot's seat had been laid back and both bodies were in varying stages of undress.

Just found a thread on the incident you mentioned. Shocking!

Inflight Sex Caused Plane Crash! (by Sabenaboy Dec 25 2003 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting hivue (Reply 24): Anyway, in a Boeing A/C one guy pulling and one guy pushing would have produced the same effect.

The same affect would not have been produced. If it were Boeing the pilots would've noticed that the stick was being pulled in the opposite direction they were pulling it and that probably would've prompted one of the pilots to ask why are you trying to nose down while I'm trying to nose up?? Thus maybe resulting in a response like we are stalling and need airspeed....

I feel like a remember reading somewhere that Airbus was considering installing an override switch to where one pilot or the other could take over complete control if they felt like the other pilot was endangering the aircraft. Or maybe I was having a dream.

Quoting airplan727 (Reply 32): Thus maybe resulting in a response like we are stalling and need airspeed....

No one on the AF447 crew ever understood that they were stalling/stalled, so, no, that would not have happened. In any event, two pilots are not supposed to have their hands on the controls at one time anyway.

Quoting airplan727 (Reply 32): I feel like a remember reading somewhere that Airbus was considering installing an override switch to where one pilot or the other could take over complete control if they felt like the other pilot was endangering the aircraft. Or maybe I was having a dream.

You didn't dream it. Airbus A/C have it.

[Edited 2014-09-04 14:46:46]

Quoting airplan727 (Reply 32): I feel like a remember reading somewhere that Airbus was considering installing an override switch to where one pilot or the other could take over complete control if they felt like the other pilot was endangering the aircraft. Or maybe I was having a dream.

The A320 series has had a Priority Override button on each stick which locks out the other pilot, since it's inception 25 years ago.

In my nearly 6,000 hours of Airbus flight time, I've never had the occasion to use it. And no one has used it on me, either.

I recall reading about a commercial airliner crash somewhere in which case the PIC told the ground proximity warning to shut up when it went off. To argue with an alarm is sheer stupidity but to fail to change course because of bullheadedness is brings it to an all new level. Can anyone help me out which crash this was?

Let not forget the worlds worst aviation disaster, the Tenerife airport disaster. Now I know it was factor in CRM training, but Captain Veldhuyzen van Zanten, pulled a horriable move that day.

I think the dumbest accident ever was Aeroperu 603. Maintenance workers forgot to remove the tape from over the static ports.

Pilots were flying blind in the darkness over the ocean with no instruments until they crashed into it. All passengers died. The equipment was also an almost brand new 757. Very very sad!

Also sad was the chief air crash investigator was the pilot's uncle.
He was asked if he wished to withdraw from the investigation (in the initial phase the cause of the investigation the cause was not clear) but he refused as he was committed to find the cause.

There is an episode of Air Crash Investigation about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWpB6ZdSFOU

Quoting airplan727 (Reply 13): How about UA173? Flying around the airport and making a decision to continue to circle after being warned by your engineer that there was less than 15 min of fuel remaining.

You beat me to it!

These are all good choices. But it is easy to Monday morning quarterback.

But some standout. The standouts are when pilots commit really routine basic flying 101 mistakes in normal conditions. It's really easy to criticize AF447 like many of you are doing, but there were many alarms and flashing warnings going off and they had very little time, they were constantly ringing the captain so they were not confident about dealing with an unexpected turn of events. They should have known, but it's 2 am storming, maybe there training was not up to speed for this kind of event. Hindsight is 20-20. I don't think this is the worst case of pilot neglect. It's bad sure, but not the very worst. EA 401 was also a bad one. But CRM was not advanced at that time, and again there was no precedence for these events when the happened. The Air Crash Investigation is a good one for EA 401. Many of you cite AF 447 because it's one of the most recent with high loss of life, and the cockpit conversation paints a dramatic and shocking turn of events. And I personally do think everyone on board knew they were falling. Just my two cents.

I think UA 173 really takes the cake. That one along with taking off with flaps up. Being in the holding pattern for a long time and running out of fuel. It is too bad, the flight engineer was killed and the two pilots lived. A flight attendant and some passengers were also killed. But most people survived amazingly, and they missed a highrise apartment building. The captain's family left him, and he died bitter and guilt ridden. The air crash investigation on this one is really, really good. A teenage girl survived and walked to a neighboring house to call her family and tell them her plane crashed. They didn't believe here. The survivors later had an event to meet the pilots.

Another type of accident you are overlooking is using the wrong runway. Comair in LEX and Singapore Airlines (I believe in TPE). Such everyday and routine things led to tragedy.

Pan AM/KLM was another accident caused by what my family calls "get-home-itis."

Air France 447, AeroPeru 603, BirgenAir 301: All instances of crews being unable to cope with a partial panel situation. So was the Northwest ferry flight back in the mid seventies. All very unfortunate and very avoidable, but not unique.

UA173, EA401, and the SK DC-8-62 that crashed off LAX in 1969, all instances of crews becoming distracted with an indicated landing gear fault and not focusing on flying the plane.

Over reliance on automation was a big factor in the Asiana crash at SFO, but I think that has been an NTSB concern going back to the SK DC-10 runway overrun at JFK in '84.

Quoting bingo1 (Reply 35): I recall reading about a commercial airliner crash somewhere in which case the PIC told the ground proximity warning to shut up when it went off. To argue with an alarm is sheer stupidity but to fail to change course because of bullheadedness is brings it to an all new level. Can anyone help me out which crash this was?

You might be thinking about the National 727 accident at Pensacola.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19780508-1
"The flight engineer turned off the GPWS warning 9 seconds after it began without the captain' s knowledge or consent."

Now, *that* is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Quoting bingo1 (Reply 35): I recall reading about a commercial airliner crash somewhere in which case the PIC told the ground proximity warning to shut up when it went off.

There was an urban legend that the Captain of Avianca 11 on November 27, 1983 yelled "Shut Up Gringo" at the GPWS just before impact with terrain. In fact, it was mentioned once during a CRM exercise. However, now that things are more transparent and all voice transcripts are easily read, I see that was not said in the cockpit during the last minutes of flight.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 36): Let not forget the worlds worst aviation disaster, the Tenerife airport disaster.

I am not sure I would call that "stupid".

The KLM Captain thought he had take off clearance. No pilot would ever take off without clearance, so the main thrust of the investigation was basically what caused Van Zanten to think he did. Same thing with the United Captain at PDX. What events in the cockpit made him ignore his fuel condition? Had he known his fuel condition (in spite of being warned three times by the FE), he would have head directly to the runway.

So these are not examples of "stupidity", as both Captains were not "stupid", their minds were just elsewhere. "Stupid", would be to knowingly take off without a clearance because you are in a hurry, or to run out of fuel knowing your fuel condition because you feel prepping the cabin is more important.

Now ... if we mean "stupid", as in a very minor cause in a long chain of events caused the crash, I would agree. But then ... what accident isn't?

Quoting longhauler (Reply 40): So these are not examples of "stupidity", as both Captains were not "stupid", their minds were just elsewhere. "Stupid", would be to knowingly take off without a clearance because you are in a hurry, or to run out of fuel knowing your fuel condition because you feel prepping the cabin is more important.

Van Zanten was in a hurry because his crew was quickly running out of duty time. He was the definition of a Sky God. Arrogance and the lack of CRM was really the ultimate cause of Tenerife.

Quoting thegoldenargosy (Reply 41): Van Zanten was in a hurry because his crew was quickly running out of duty time. He was the definition of a Sky God. Arrogance and the lack of CRM was really the ultimate cause of Tenerife.

No, the cause of the crash was that Van Zanten took off without a takeoff clearance.

All you state are correct, but ... the actual cause was a takeoff roll without a takeoff clearance. This accident investigation was landmark. Not because of the numbers involved, but because the investigation could have ended right there. "Pilot error, takeoff without clearance". Period, end of investigation, let's go home.

But they didn't. For the first time in investigation history (to that great detail), they looked into the long chain of events that led to the final cause, including those causal factors you mention, and many more.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 42): But they didn't. For the first time in investigation history (to that great detail), they looked into the long chain of events that led to the final cause, including those causal factors you mention, and many more.

didn´t they change the wording of some tower - AC communication as a result of that?

best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 43): didn´t they change the wording of some tower - AC communication as a result of that?

A lot of SOPs changed as a result of that accident. And still do ... there are very few accident investigations that don't end with some suggestions for safer operations.

In my opinion, one of the biggest changes was the introduction and encouragement of CRM. It was apparent that both the F/O and the F/E were aware they did not have take off clearance, but were afraid to say anything. That was why the F/O transmitted "we are at takeoff", a non-standard call, basically warning everyone to get out of the way!

One of the haunting things about Tenerife is the flight engineer expressing misgivings, only to be ignored.
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}

I can imagine the poor chap thinking something like "I don't like this...I could yell "Abort!" but if I'm wrong, there goes my carreer". As others have stated, this became a watershed for CRM. Sadly, accidents still happen when a warning is ignored, as in the First Air accicident at Resolute.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2..._nunavut_crash_that_killed_12.html
...But Rutherford ignored the warnings and pressed ahead, even though the Boeing 737 was high, fast and off course on the approach.
Finally, Hare called Rutherford by his first name, and pointedly said, “I don’t like this.”...

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 21): This thread is a bit ridiculous. Hind sight is 20/20 in most of these cases and none of you were in these situations. I for one am not perfect and would not be sitting here saying what I would do in these situations. Especially when some of you admit you are private pilots.

The whole argument that nobody can say anything about acts of stupidity and incompetence is ridiculous. I don't have to stand under a falling piano and get crushed to say it was a pretty dumb thing for someone to do. Being unable to handle a stressful situation means you shouldn't have been on the job.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 40): Quoting 747400sp (Reply 36): Let not forget the worlds worst aviation disaster, the Tenerife airport disaster. I am not sure I would call that "stupid". The KLM Captain thought he had take off clearance. No pilot would ever take off without clearance, so the main thrust of the investigation was basically what caused Van Zanten to think he did.

Well, in respect to your vastly longer experience here and RR, I would just shade the definition of "stupid" a bit. My overall impression, having read about Tenerife many times over the years, the entire transcripts, documentaries, etc., was that overall van Zanten was being hasty and aggressive, similar to an aggressive driver in a car, in a foggy condition that would certainly be very unforgiving to wrong assumptions. So van Zanten's being aggressive in clear weather might be called "aggressive," whereas some might call van Zanten's being aggressive while shrouded in dense fog, "stupid."

Some 'stupid' crashes are caused by a series of bad decisions by pilots, failures to follow checklists, or giving into pressure of airline operators and pax.

How about Helios 552 ? Failures to consider necessary repairs to door seals, a failure to check the pressurization valve, not recognizing and taking too much time to deal with their lack of pressurization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

I think they Lion Air crash in Bali was quite stupid also, basically they landed short of the runway on the water... similar to Asiana in SFO.