I recently came across an episode of ACI about AA965 which I had never heard of before. From my understanding, a series of fatal mistakes led to the 757 literally being flown into the side of a mountain. Much of the cause was blamed on the crew, but did any changes actually result from it?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5vrrbr

The two that I know off hand are that (1) all passenger aircraft with more than a half-dozen pax capacity were soon required to have ground/proximity warning systems. That would've made little impact on AA965, as the 752 had it.

Also, (2) the nav manufacturers (Honeywell and others) were found partially liable for having systems where corner-cutting pilots could just input a single letter for a beacon, and auto-fill the rest. IINM, it isn't standard for nav systems to allow that anymore.

That said, 986 was mostly human error... pilots with so much get-thereitis due to an unexpected runway assignment, poor (language) communication, and lack of proper airport/ground equipment for guidance. Most of that would have to be fixed by training, not directly by regs.

An improved ground proximity warning system apparently:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... #Aftermath and onwards.

That crash seems to have had quite the choking necklace of faults lined up.

Multi-crew SOPs generally require confirmation from the second crew member before either a new waypoint is added to the route, or the route is changed to "direct to" any waypoint already in the flight plan.

For example, if the original routing is AVBOB - TALON - PICUS, and a clearance is then received from ATC (air traffic control) to fly direct to PICUS, then the PF (pilot flying) would select PICUS in the flight plan and say something like "Direct PICUS." Then the PM (pilot monitoring) would be required to check and acknowledge that the correct waypoint has been selected and respond with something like "Execute." The PF then activates the direct routing in the system and the aircraft flies direct to the new waypoint.

A similar method is followed when entering new waypoints into the FMC (flight management computer), ie: the second crew member always checks and confirms.

Didn´t they also had the spoilers up and didn´t retract them while applying full thrust, thus resulting in worse than normal climb performance? As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

GianiDC wrote:

As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I was wondering, a warning system that would alert pilots that the spoilers are armed when the thrust is raised to “go around” levels. Kind of like that “landing gear warning”.

ilovelamp wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

Newbiepilot wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

At my US legacy carrier and on my airplane, our terrain escape maneuver is accomplished without pressing TOGA so speedbrakes have to be manually retracted. We don’t want to follow TOGA guidance in this situation. A/Ts and A/P off, max thrust and 20 degree pitch up to start with to clear the terrain.

Also, the RJ I flew doesn’t have auto-retract speedbrakes.

GianiDC wrote:

Didn´t they also had the spoilers up and didn´t retract them while applying full thrust, thus resulting in worse than normal climb performance? As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

The speed brakes were on and it was configured for landing. Full thrust was applied, but the configuration of the wings prevented it from gaining altitude.

In addition to the above-mentioned TOGA-power-application/stowage-of-spoilers and beacon/waypoint-selection-protocols, I'm sure there were changes as well to approaches in Colombia, given the FARC-led violence and damage to infrastructure in the country - one of the issues that, although relatively minor, was a link in the chain that led to the accident, wherein a non-operational beacon had a designation that was way too similar to the desired one (with its designation being changed after the accident, IIRC).

Didn't that accident hasten the introduction of EGPWS, with the terrain data base?

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

Didn't that accident hasten the introduction of EGPWS, with the terrain data base?

It did


However the 757 /67 were not modified
to retract speed brakes in flight
with application of full power


OTOH they will retract on the ground

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

Didn´t they also had the spoilers up and didn´t retract them while applying full thrust, thus resulting in worse than normal climb performance? As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

The speed brakes were on and it was configured for landing.

Not exactly. Flaps and gear were up, most definitely not in a landing configuration. Speedbrakes came out at about FL170 and stayed out until impact.

Max Q wrote:

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

Didn't that accident hasten the introduction of EGPWS, with the terrain data base?

It did


However the 757 /67 were not modified
to retract speed brakes in flight
with application of full power


OTOH they will retract on the ground

The 787 and 777X are the only Boeing airplane that can auto retract the speed brakes if thrust is selected beyond a certain point. However, several other models like the 777 and KC-46 will give a CONFIG SPOILERS warning if this occurs, so the crew can manually retract them.

Newbiepilot wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

As I mentioned, this is not correct. Also, you don’t select TO/GA on Boeing airplanes for a terrain escape. You push the thrust up and initially pitch up to 20 degrees. Along with of course confirming the speed brakes are retracted.

Max Q wrote:

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

Didn't that accident hasten the introduction of EGPWS, with the terrain data base?

It did


However the 757 /67 were not modified
to retract speed brakes in flight
with application of full power


OTOH they will retract on the ground

I was not trying to tie EGPWS to spoiler control. I was just identifying a safety upgrade that came from the crash. With the additional time an EPWS system shoudd provide over a basic GPWS, the crew might have realized the spoilers were still up.

AA had what I believe to be a company wide training program.....kind of like top gun movie- “we have lost”our basic flying skills and need to rely less on autopilot etc.....if I remember correctly our instructor was actually former top gun attendee.
The course had some excellent info ahead of its time dealing with wind shear recovery, unusual attitude recovery etc.
They were really stressing the aggressive use of rudder( which in certain attitudes the elevator/ailerons may be ineffective),but when the A300 went down down after takeoff in JFK, ( AA587?) I always felt it was partially caused by this training and a misguided FO trying to control little upset with this new technique of primarily using rudder

If you read the cockpit voice recorder transcript, it's amazing how much chaos the two pilots caused for themselves and how confused they were until the "terain / pull up warning" chimed in.

I don't know if it already was completely dark at the time of the crash (21:41:27) and if they might have been in clouds (not unlikely), but they were so focused on "playing" with the FMC, that they apparently forgot to check the terrain ahead or look at the proper paper maps and thus lost all situational awareness. At the point when they got confused where they were exactly, they should have climbed to a safe altitude and gone for a new approach.

2140:40 Captain: It's that [expletive] Tulua I'm not getting for some reason.

2140:44 Captain: See I can't get, OK now, no, Tulua's [expletive] up.

2140:48 First Officer: OK. yeah.

2140:49 First Officer: But I can put it in the box if you want it.

2140:52 First Officer: I don't want Tulua. Let's just go to the extended centerline of uh....

2140:55 Captain: Which is Rozo.

2140:56 First Officer: Rozo.

2140:56 Captain: Why don't you just go direct to Rozo then, alright?

2140:58 First Officer: OK, let's...

2140:59 Captain: I'm goin' to put that over you.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr951220.htm

GianiDC wrote:

Didn´t they also had the spoilers up and didn´t retract them while applying full thrust, thus resulting in worse than normal climb performance? As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

Your information is 100% incorrect. How much time do you have flying the 757 to make this statement?

Newbiepilot wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

Can you provide a link to the SB you referenced? You know, the one "you think" there was?

Also please advise of your total time flying the 757 as it would make your credibility that much more respectable.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

GianiDC wrote:

Didn´t they also had the spoilers up and didn´t retract them while applying full thrust, thus resulting in worse than normal climb performance? As an aftermath, spoilers now automatically retract when giving max power.

The speed brakes were on and it was configured for landing. Full thrust was applied, but the configuration of the wings prevented it from gaining altitude.

In addition to the above-mentioned TOGA-power-application/stowage-of-spoilers and beacon/waypoint-selection-protocols, I'm sure there were changes as well to approaches in Colombia, given the FARC-led violence and damage to infrastructure in the country - one of the issues that, although relatively minor, was a link in the chain that led to the accident, wherein a non-operational beacon had a designation that was way too similar to the desired one (with its designation being changed after the accident, IIRC).

Ok. Let's start with you providing your total flight time on the 757 to establish your credibility.

Configured for landing means gear down and flaps 25 or 30 (of course assuming both engines operating).

So in your expert assessment of the accident would you suggest it was a poorly executed go-around or a poorly executed terrain avoidance maneuver?

pikachu wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

Can you provide a link to the SB you referenced? You know, the one "you think" there was?

Also please advise of your total time flying the 757 as it would make your credibility that much more respectable.

I don’t have any flying time on the 757, but I can state with accuracy what Boeing airplane models do and do not have auto retract in the air, and what Boeing models have warning alerts for speed brakes up and thrust past a certain level.

However, as I stated in a previous post, the statements made by each person who you replied to are not correct. Boeing looked at adding an auto retract speed brake function in the air on all models, but the mechanisms don’t support it without a large infeasble redesign on models that existed at the time. The 787, 777X have it.

BoeingGuy wrote:

pikachu wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

Can you provide a link to the SB you referenced? You know, the one "you think" there was?

Also please advise of your total time flying the 757 as it would make your credibility that much more respectable.

I don’t have any flying time on the 757, but I can state with accuracy what Boeing airplane models do and do not have auto retract in the air, and what Boeing models have warning alerts for speed brakes up and thrust past a certain level.

However, as I stated in a previous post, the statements made by each person who you replied to are not correct. Boeing looked at adding an auto retract speed brake function in the air on all models, but the mechanisms don’t support it without a large infeasble redesign on models that existed at the time. The 787, 777X have it.

I always support my engineers. Always.

I hope the other goofballs who have internet access and post 100% verifiably false information about the accident show up soon.

pikachu wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Not on all airliners; however, it became required procedure to verify speedbrakes are stowed for go-arounds, and TCAS and wind shear escape maneuvers.

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

Can you provide a link to the SB you referenced? You know, the one "you think" there was?

Also please advise of your total time flying the 757 as it would make your credibility that much more respectable.

Kindness is much more pleasant than rudeness and calling people goofballs my friend.

Never flown a 757 and it has been a while since I worked on them, which is why I was trying to remember if there was a logic change without looking it up since I know it was discussed a long time ago. I was thinking of SB 757-27A0130 and 757-27A0131, but those were bulletins to prevent extension rather than retract them.

This discussion has me thinking....granted, not real accepted piloting, but as many have said the 757 is a rocket, and as I read here gear and flaps were up and only speed brakes were deployed, "would" the airplane at FULL power managed enough energy to maintain climb, or was there just not enough energy to begin with to maintain flight? Or is the design of the wing/lift surfaces such that I am way off base?

FrmrKSEngr wrote:

Didn't that accident hasten the introduction of EGPWS, with the terrain data base?

I can't find it, but a year or two I read a fantastic article about the Honeywell who created EGPWS. EGPWS was already functional before the Cali accident, and he claims that prior to the accident American had no interest in spending the money to retrofit their aircraft.

bhill wrote:

This discussion has me thinking....granted, not real accepted piloting, but as many have said the 757 is a rocket, and as I read here gear and flaps were up and only speed brakes were deployed, "would" the airplane at FULL power managed enough energy to maintain climb, or was there just not enough energy to begin with to maintain flight? Or is the design of the wing/lift surfaces such that I am way off base?

They struck the ridge not very far below the top, so with the spoilers closed, they probably would have just cleared the top. Most CFIT accidents like this are very close hits, often 200’ would have saved them.

GF

BoeingGuy wrote:

pikachu wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think there was a service bulletin to change the logic so spoilers automatically retract if TOGA is selected

Can you provide a link to the SB you referenced? You know, the one "you think" there was?

Also please advise of your total time flying the 757 as it would make your credibility that much more respectable.

I don’t have any flying time on the 757, but I can state with accuracy what Boeing airplane models do and do not have auto retract in the air, and what Boeing models have warning alerts for speed brakes up and thrust past a certain level.

However, as I stated in a previous post, the statements made by each person who you replied to are not correct. Boeing looked at adding an auto retract speed brake function in the air on all models, but the mechanisms don’t support it without a large infeasble redesign on models that existed at the time. The 787, 777X have it.

Well I do have a few thousand hours on the 757 and like our expert BoeingGuy has stated, the spoilers do not retract with an application of max power. As I recall, pushing the TOGA switch does nothing unless your are in the T.O. or landing config, so it would no have been applicable in this case.

For the aircraft that do have auto retract features when TOGA is selected, do they impact roll spoilers? Or are their systems separated (as I hope they are).

Separated, they’re “multi-function”, so it’s all blended in.

GF

trpmb6 wrote:

For the aircraft that do have auto retract features when TOGA is selected, do they impact roll spoilers? Or are their systems separated (as I hope they are).

As GalaxyFlyer says, the roll control function is separate.

I can only speak for 330/350 but roll control has priority over speedbrake. For example, if the flight control system requires more deflection from a spoiler than the sum of simultaneous speedbrake and roll order, it will retract the opposite surface until the difference between the symmetrical surfaces is equal to the roll order.

Starlionblue wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

For the aircraft that do have auto retract features when TOGA is selected, do they impact roll spoilers? Or are their systems separated (as I hope they are).

As GalaxyFlyer says, the roll control function is separate.

I can only speak for 330/350 but roll control has priority over speedbrake. For example, if the flight control system requires more deflection from a spoiler than the sum of simultaneous speedbrake and roll order, it will retract the opposite surface until the difference between the symmetrical surfaces is equal to the roll order.

This is what I expected. I have done some work with Aileron's and spoiler's but not exactly from a system safety stand point.

The main reason I asked is because I know in the past we've been able to certify aileron's and spoiler's by saying you still had adequate roll authority if you lost one of the surfaces. Ie. an aileron becomes inoperable due to a failure, but you still have adequate roll capability via the opposite aileron and both roll spoilers. Obviously cannot lose two of the four as that would be a double failure. This analysis would change if you had a setting, like that discussed above, that might make roll spoiler's inoperable for some reason. But as you both have pointed out, that is not the case. Excellent.

Sorry to high jack this tread a bit, but I recently read the accident report about AA 1572 and found out that AA flies (or used to fly) with QFE settings.
I don't know if this had an influence on AA 965, but I am still wondering:

Why did they decide to base their approaches on QFE? There must be some back-story to this.
Do they still do this, or have they reverted to normal altimeter setting procedures?

Regards