Landing Incident @ SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you know that?

Sounds exactly like the BA 777 at LHR to me, from what I have seen. (Fuel in tanks, not to engines )
I'm pretty sure that the NTSB is going to go ahead with their investigation despite my post. While anything is possible, not everything is probable.
 
I'm pretty sure that the NTSB is going to go ahead with their investigation despite my post. While anything is possible, not everything is probable.
Please follow up all ideas and personal investigations, regarding this crash, to A.Net! They've got 97% of it figured out.

They'll be closing the books on this incident in 17 minutes. NTSB be damned!!
**Cough**

;)
 
Quoting CNN's stupid experts of the day

"Well, they have the PAPI at the end of the runway that guides them down to the centerline."

"Maybe their altimeters were off and the ILS wasn't working." (yeah, because severe clear is dangerous!)
 
I'll say it myself. Drawing conclusions without facts does a disservice to everyone.

I don't know why this happened.

You don't know why this happened.

We don't know exactly what happened.

Get data, examine data, see what it tells us. Right now, all intelligent people have are questions.


Buzzkill....It's much more fun to speculate with Wolf Blitzer as I reach for another pale ale. And for those that dont know me......:sarcasm:
 
Quoting CNN's stupid experts of the day

"Well, they have the PAPI at the end of the runway that guides them down to the centerline."

"Maybe their altimeters were off and the ILS wasn't working." (yeah, because severe clear is dangerous!)


This guy knows all

quest.richard.jpg
 
Quoting CNN's stupid experts of the day

"Well, they have the PAPI at the end of the runway

Ok, I'm shocked that Wolf didn't pose the question of why a Pizza Joint was built at the end of a runway!!

I swear, he becomes more of a slacker, each day.
 
Gee good thing the ATP rule is coming into effect in a month so accidents like this do not happen :sarcasm:

jtrain609 said:
Well, being that other countries put low time pilots in aircraft like this...maybe!

jtrain609 is absolutely right. I'm not sure how you thought this incident would somehow support your 1500 hour rule bashing, since the exact opposite is true. The fact is that ab initio training and cadet programs are the norm in Asia, and people with ~250-300 hours really ARE put in the right seat of heavy jets.

I really hope this incident creates a more public discussion about ab initio training, the practice of outsourcing their new hires to pilot mills in the U.S. (and why it's done), the "FO" contracts they have with freight companies like Ameriflight, and the cultural differences and age and experience hierarchies "nc" referred to that don't lend themselves to adequate CRM.

We should also be talking about the practice of hiring ex-pat westerners as captains (which many of you say "babysit" or "flight instruct" the foreign FOs). I've read this is on the decline in Asia, as countries become more nationalistic, view the ex-pats as taking their jobs, and promote more of their own FOs to Captains rather than hire the ex-pats. What happens if those new captains still aren't up to par, and they're now the ones responsible for leading and supervising the new ab initio FOs?

I think this is a pretty complex issue, but from the outside it sure looks like ab initio training in Asia is broken.

So if you'd like to rage about the 1500 hour rule and how it's preventing you from getting into the right seat of an RJ faster, today's incident is not very good supporting evidence. In fact, it may end up serving as a solemn reminder of why the U.S. should not go the ab initio route (despite how pleased the airlines would be to have their pilots bought into indentured servitude).

3qn8ad.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top