Hawker Down near AKR

Boris Badenov said:
Not looking for anything in particular. Again, this isn't chest-thumping. It's just an explication of why wetting one's britches over the supposed experience level of a (hypothetical) F/O who was (hypothetically) on this airplane which (really) crashed is not only ridiculous, but insulting. I mean, the elephant in the room, again, is that no one has any idea whatsoever what happened to these poor people. Everything else is supposition and/or speculation. But it's curious, isn't it, how often our suppositions and/or speculations tend to line up with our Opinions on things which don't have any obvious connection with whatever we're supposing or speculating about?
Click to expand...
Yes, confirmation bias exists.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
We saw Travis barker's jet went off the runway at CAE when it should have taken off, the experienced FO yelling "go, go, go" and the relatively inexperienced Captain being indecisive in the moment. Upon further digging, had failed multiple checkrides, and when interviewing the CP of that place, it turned out he never did a sim check on her interview because she came "highly recommended" even though the sim check was part of the normal interview process. Now granted, she couldn't have known the squat switch was affected and the TRs actually made their situation worse, but aborting over V1 wasn't smart in that particular case. The FO felt that plane would fly and recommended doing so.

When some here suggested an operator error with a gust lock engaged in a Gulfstream jet at BED, quite a few went the other way with it-could-have-been-anything. Once the theory gained traction, the evidence painted a clear picture.

The Embraer Phenom in Maryland is still under investigation, but IIRC the NTSB made some comments on a recovered recording device that showed the airspeed as dangerously low followed by a stall onset that was not recovered.

UPS in BHM. Fatigue cited as a huge issue.

Now in this AKR case, I understand we're open to anything that could have happened. Sure, a wing could have fallen off. Or a tail. I too would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but historically speaking a crash in this phase is almost invariably boil down to operator error, with a possible fatigue contributing factor.
Click to expand...
Awesome. Should we start with Renslows failed check rides? Or maybe we should 410 it dude? We'll just ignore United/Continental going off the runway in Denver during take off and destroying an airframe. Or should we ignore American breaking a 737 in three pieces in Jamaica during landing. Maybe we should look at Southwest doing a wheelbarrow and totaling an airframe. I'm pretty sure there was a regional that did some thing similar in the last couple years. Yeah you're right, every thing should be like 121. Anecdotal is, as anecdotal does.
 
Boris Badenov said:
I'm peeing on you. From the Internet.
Click to expand...
I'm always cautious while lurking around (check my post count vs my join date) not to succumb to the urge to sway my impression of a community based on the vibe created by a few.

Speaking of which, leave Todd out of this. He has a knack of avoiding the low hanging fruit, no reason to drag him in...

Mr Cessna's (confirm, inventor of the gasper valve?) quote reminded me of my favorite quote I was just saying in response to an airplane being "easy" to fly.. "You know the difference between a 172 and a 747? The size of the hole it makes."

Carry on y'all
 
A80TRACON said:
From what I've read in the last few pages, you're looking at the KNOWN factors as of this minute. Who knows, something drastic may have happened in the cockpit a la FDX705 or some other nefarious deed. The wreckage is barely cold and you have sewn up the case Columbo....just one more thing, where in the hell is @ATN_Pilot the last few days. I've seen his "likes" but he's been awfully quiet. Don't you know I NEED entertainment over here!?
Click to expand...
Click your heels and say "ALPA, ALPA,ALPA" and he will appear. If you don't say it exactly right @Seggy could arrive first though.
 
ComplexHiAv8r said:
How do you get him to go away?
Click to expand...
image.jpg
 
Boris Badenov said:
Not looking for anything in particular. Again, this isn't chest-thumping. It's just an explication of why wetting one's britches over the supposed experience level of a (hypothetical) F/O who was (hypothetically) on this airplane which (really) crashed is not only ridiculous, but insulting. I mean, the elephant in the room, again, is that no one has any idea whatsoever what happened to these poor people. Everything else is supposition and/or speculation. But it's curious, isn't it, how often our suppositions and/or speculations tend to line up with our Opinions on things which don't have any obvious connection with whatever we're supposing or speculating about?
Click to expand...
The amount of butthurt over the statement "flight time = qualification" is almost as spectacularly ridiculous as the assertion that "flight time = qualification."
 
Flight time is very simply experience. You've seen more stuff. When you put that stuff back in your tool kit, you are better equipped for what you might see in the future. For an FO that means being an asset to the captain instead of a liability. It isn't meant to make your road harder, or to keep you from a job that you're licensed to do. It's a discriminator that will help keep you and your passengers alive and out of the news.
 
A pilot once put flight time in perspective for me. He asked do you have 5,000 hours, or do you have 100 hours 500 times? I really believe that to be true. I have flown with guys that have 30,000 hours and can't fly a plane to save their life. And a few 2,500 hour guys that were excellent pilots.

The experience of the FO might be a side note that when facts are released, we can judge on. But I doubt we are going to get a root cause to this accident other than a broad probable cause like "the pilots inability to maintain airspeed while on approach." That doesn't mean anything. It only shows how he plane crashed, not why.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Flight time is a funny metric.

I have about 500 hours in the 330.

I have 600 hours in the 320.

I have vastly more experience and comfort in the 320 because 60% of that time wasn't spent sleeping, eating or typing @Vector4Food racist jokes over CPDLC, it's actually flying the jet.
 
So, about the security cam footage of the crash. I saw a news channel video which had the footage blown up / enlarged for the few frames it was in view. It appeared to me that the Hawker was in a near knife-edge flight attitude (looked like left wing down to me) just before impact.

<speculate>

I have two thoughts, based on this flight attitude.

1) After descending too low (who knows why) on the approach, maybe they hit some power lines or something just before that spot in the video, which put them in that attitude.

2) Alternatively, maybe they didn't descend that low as a cause of the crash, rather they got slow on the approach and/or for another reason stalled it (like an sudden accidental massive over correction on the controls or a control failure causing a great pitch / AoA change at a relatively low speed), then lost the altitude as they rolled over on the left side.

</speculate>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top