Brazil Jet Disaster

[MelBridgeman]

i think cost is the single most important factor here...to the airlines a go around or a diversion costs money

also lets not rule out pilot ego.
________
Yamaha ttr230

[ken0042]

One thing that is shown on the show "Mayday" (where they look into airline crashes) is that most crashes are caused by a series of events. If you remove any one of those events the plane would not have crashed. But often it takes 3 or 5 things to bring a plane down.

[mykalberta]

Here is a video from the pit of a 320 landing at CGH to see what its like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ77mPgJ_Sk

MYK

[Ryan Coke]

Wow, got some armchair questioning of the pilots going on now in a big way.

"Those types of things are relayed to a pilot by the ops at the airline or the preflight breifing at least in NA. Example the Comair crash in Lexington KY.

Also, I would highly doubt that this is the pilots first time flying into the airport since it had been paved."

The best info available is passed along, but the cold hard facts are that sometimes the info either isn't available or it is incorrect. A common situation for us in Canada is runway friction due to ice/snow in winter. We have a system entirely devoted to it (CRFI). But it is only as good as the A)accuracy of the system--it still has inherent limitations B)recency of the last runway test C)the most recent and applicable data being passed on, instead of one from 12 hours earlier.

I don't know the details of this situation, but if the runway hadn't been grooved that would dramatically affect braking ability in wet conditions. If that info hadn't been passed along, then data the crew would be dealing with would be inaccurate.

As for the pilot not having flown in there since it was paved, my understanding is it was paved within the last week. So it is actually extremely likely that they hadn't flown in since the paving.

As for the comments on cost of diverting/going around, while true from a macro standpoint, the entire purpose of a pilots job is to deal with risk and safety, and make tough decisions regardless of financial issues. We have to divert/go around as a course of our jobs, and it happens--not all the time, but it is not uncommon either.

In fairness, although it is possible those can be issues, or even 'pilot ego', I just feel it is unfair to make those types of accusations with no evidence pointing to that, and certainly not to make the assessment that it is the only plausible cause.

It might be the pilots, we all make mistakes, but as Ken said, it is almost always a multitude of issues that contribute to it, not just pilot error.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Wow, got some armchair questioning of the pilots going on now in a big way.

"Those types of things are relayed to a pilot by the ops at the airline or the preflight breifing at least in NA. Example the Comair crash in Lexington KY.

Also, I would highly doubt that this is the pilots first time flying into the airport since it had been paved."

The best info available is passed along, but the cold hard facts are that sometimes the info either isn't available or it is incorrect. A common situation for us in Canada is runway friction due to ice/snow in winter. We have a system entirely devoted to it (CRFI). But it is only as good as the A)accuracy of the system--it still has inherent limitations B)recency of the last runway test C)the most recent and applicable data being passed on, instead of one from 12 hours earlier.

I don't know the details of this situation, but if the runway hadn't been grooved that would dramatically affect braking ability in wet conditions. If that info hadn't been passed along, then data the crew would be dealing with would be inaccurate.

As for the pilot not having flown in there since it was paved, my understanding is it was paved within the last week. So it is actually extremely likely that they hadn't flown in since the paving.

As for the comments on cost of diverting/going around, while true from a macro standpoint, the entire purpose of a pilots job is to deal with risk and safety, and make tough decisions regardless of financial issues. We have to divert/go around as a course of our jobs, and it happens--not all the time, but it is not uncommon either.

In fairness, although it is possible those can be issues, or even 'pilot ego', I just feel it is unfair to make those types of accusations with no evidence pointing to that, and certainly not to make the assessment that it is the only plausible cause.

It might be the pilots, we all make mistakes, but as Ken said, it is almost always a multitude of issues that contribute to it, not just pilot error.

Hey bro we are just speculating here.
Let's not forget that pilot error is responsible for 76% of all aviation accidents.
As far as your bolded part goes. Certainly that statement is the mantra of all airlines, but accident history proves that airlines will risk public and client safety to save a few bucks.
Finally I think its no secret that the airline industry works on a "do nothing until lives are lost" principle. They are two many examples in history of preventable accidents to suggest otherwise.
Examples include in the late 90's the word was out that flight decks should be locked and secured (because of reports of terrorist gaining control) - nothing was done because of the cost - 9/11 happens and flight decks are locked up.
________
TOYOTA CRESSIDA SPECIFICATIONS

[Ryan Coke]

Speulation is fine, just as is rebutting erroneous facts and assertions. Like " Let's not forget that pilot error is responsible for 76% of all aviation accidents." I am curious where you came up with that one, because it is wrong. If you said pilot error is a factor in 76% you might be getting closer, but that equates to anything that the crew did wrong in hindsight could be considered to be a factor, in spite of whatever situation the crew was placed in which was outside of their control. BTW, the numbers I found for pilot error were between 37-53%, depending on how you derive the data.


"..accident history proves that airlines will risk public and client safety to save a few bucks." I won't dispute that has occured in isolated cases, but to state that it PROVES that airlines do this is like saying that Charles Manson proves that white males are mass murderers. I want to try to understand that based on your limited knowledge of the industry that is the way you see it, but it couldn't be more inaccurate. Any reputable and well run airline knows that the absolute worst thing you can do to the financial well being of an airline is to have an accident. There is no better way to major financial loss and bancruptcy than to have an accident. In actuality profound amounts of money are spent to avoid any type of accident.

"Finally I think its no secret that the airline industry works on a "do nothing until lives are lost" principle. They are two many examples in history of preventable accidents to suggest otherwise." It is no secret? It is absolutely false. You could not be more incorrect.

Are changes made, and lessons learnt from every accident? Of course. But changes are being constantly made to minimize risk, and minimize the chances for accidents. But when your knowledge of aviation is limited to what you read in the newspaper, and you are naive enough to have not yet developed a healthy skepticism for mainstream media, then your views are understandable. But they are also wrong.

Aviation is one of the most scrutinized industries, because of the media. As much as it is often incorrect, biased, and sensationalized, it has provided the benefit of creating one of the safest and most self-critical industries.

You seem to have a very skeptical view of airlines and flight crews, and it is unfortunate when much of it is extremely inaccurate. There are bad apples in airlines, pilots, and every other group of organizations and individuals, but it is not representative of the whole. I can assure you that most airlines, and most pilots, take the safety of their passengers as the number 1 priority, and work very hard to ensure it.