"Too low. Gear."

Funny this video pops up... a buddy of mine at KGSO saw a DC-10 from FEX do the exact same thing... 3 mile final, gear down... new procedure? same new flight crew? Who knows...
 
I had a copy of it, and they made me return it when I checked out, and OpsO even put a note in my transfer file to verify that it had been returned when I checked in at my follow-on command.
 
GX said:
I had a copy of it, and they made me return it when I checked out, and OpsO even put a note in my transfer file to verify that it had been returned when I checked in at my follow-on command.
Click to expand...
Is there a particular reason they keep them so close to the vest?
 
UPS used to be "stable at 500 in VMC". Then, we had an incident where a crew got a tail strike cause they had the boards out way late (in spite of the speedbrakes extended caution) cause they were way fast and didn't go around. Next thing you know, we are "stable at 1000 all the time". At first, it seemed silly to me as there are situations where it's way overly conservative. But then, I just got into the mindset that I'll fly the jet the way the ask. That's what I'm paid for. You can't argue that a more conservative mindset might have saved the SWA BUR overrun and kept Fedex off of Youtube.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Is there a particular reason they keep them so close to the vest?
Click to expand...

Certain Tabs of the SIB report contain information given to investigators purely for use for flight safety purposes and are not intended to have the person giving said testimony subject to punitive action. Only the SIB President and the Investigating Officer (myself, in this accident) were authorized to issue promises of confidentiality to witnesses. This is to allow frank and open discussion/testimony about these subjects for the immediate use towards safety related purposes. Hence the need for close hold. There can be no threats of any kind of administrative or legal actions against the witness for his frank testimony, so long as it's truthful with no intent to deceive. The SIB is whats known as the "white hat". It's such a close-hold report in it's complete format with all Tabs present, that it won't be found in other than the Flight Safety Center library archives in its fully-complete state. Portions of the report that GX might be talking about are the non-privileged parts of the safety report that contain basic factual information, without containing any of the privileged testimony.

The AIB is a separate board and exists following the SIB in order to find cause and fault, if any. The same witnesses here have no privilige protections and are read their rights prior to their testimony. Oftentimes, they will have legal counsel present, and are advised on what to say and when. During turnover from the SIB to the AIB, only basic factual information is passed on, but nothing privileged is ever passed on. Beyond the basic facts, the AIB members have to do their own homework and come to their own conclusions. AIB is the "black hat" crew.
 
MikeD said:
Certain Tabs of the SIB report contain information given to investigators purely for use for flight safety purposes and are not intended to have the person giving said testimony subject to punitive action. Only the SIB President and the Investigating Officer (myself, in this accident) were authorized to issue promises of confidentiality to witnesses. This is to allow frank and open discussion/testimony about these subjects for the immediate use towards safety related purposes. Hence the need for close hold. There can be no threats of any kind of administrative or legal actions against the witness for his frank testimony, so long as it's truthful with no intent to deceive. The SIB is whats known as the "white hat". It's such a close-hold report in it's complete format with all Tabs present, that it won't be found in other than the Flight Safety Center library archives in its fully-complete state. Portions of the report that GX might be talking about are the non-privileged parts of the safety report that contain basic factual information, without containing any of the privileged testimony.

The AIB is a separate board and exists following the SIB in order to find cause and fault, if any. The same witnesses here have no privilige protections and are read their rights prior to their testimony. Oftentimes, they will have legal counsel present, and are advised on what to say and when. During turnover from the SIB to the AIB, only basic factual information is passed on, but nothing privileged is ever passed on. Beyond the basic facts, the AIB members have to do their own homework and come to their own conclusions. AIB is the "black hat" crew.
Click to expand...
Wash n share :).

I get that aspect, but at the same time, wiped and deidentified reports might be useful to others in the aviation community ( from a safety standpoint) example, the b1 gear up... We all know that it landed with wheels in the wells.. But why? The hard part of safety development from NASA reports etc, is that these days there are so few "accidents" that we're stuck recycling all the old stuff. Not a slight against the military at all, but, you guys manage to bend up a lot more planes than the 121 guys do( simple nature of the flying you do etc). There probably is a lot of good information in that library that the rest of the aviation world won't get to see
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Wash n share :).

I get that aspect, but at the same time, wiped and deidentified reports might be useful to others in the aviation community ( from a safety standpoint) example, the b1 gear up... We all know that it landed with wheels in the wells.. But why? The hard part of safety development from NASA reports etc, is that these days there are so few "accidents" that we're stuck recycling all the old stuff. Not a slight against the military at all, but, you guys manage to bend up a lot more planes than the 121 guys do( simple nature of the flying you do etc). There probably is a lot of good information in that library that the rest of the aviation world won't get to see
Click to expand...

Our tactical side bends metal, but that's simply due to the extreme type of flying, like you say. You have to compare apples to apples by comparing our strategic airlift and tanker side, which isn't much different from 121 flying in many respects, and the safety rate is comparable more or less. Basically airline pilots in flightsuits, and that's no slam on them at all; just rough general comparison.

While I don't think we're ever really finding new ways to crash planes, I do agree that alot of good could come from many of these investigations being disseminated for safety purposes, but unfortunately in this case, this is where the safety and legal lines have to be kept apart, so information outflow beyond those with a clear need to know, does suffer.
 
seagull said:
Getting recorded is a fact of life. The truth is that, if you are doing everything you are supposed to, recording is much more likely to SAVE you than the opposite, as you have proof you did not do something. Considering how poor people are at making witnesses, and all of the cognitive biases, I am much more worried about being accused (and if a crime, even convicted) of something I did not do than being caught doing something I shouldn't be doing.
Click to expand...

So did you slap their wrists?
 
The DC-10-10 was a]the original lower gross weight version and lacked the center gear.
The DC-10-20's name was changed to the -40. It had the PW engines (noticeable with the bulbous #2 engine intake), the higher gross weight thus the center gear, and the name change was to make it seem "newer" than the -30. Only NW and JAL ordered them.
The DC-10-30 was common and high gross weight with GE engines.

A number of DC-10-10s and -30s were converted by FDX to the MD-11 cockpit, thus the "MD-10" name. It carries the "MD-10-10" and "MD-10-30" name was appropriate. (I believe with the F?)

The MD-11 was a new stretched design with a smaller tail and stab and higher gross weight. It's noticeably longer than the DC-10/MD-10, has the bulbous #2 engine intake like the -40, and has the winglets.

seagull- Am I correct in stating that the MD-10 is "corrected" to land like the MD-11 by adding the LSAS to it as well? All the guys I know at DL that flew the MD-11 talk about how strange and mechanical the MD-11 was to land, whereas the NW guys that flew the DC-10 only report an extremely stable and smooth landing machine.
 
Because everything was betterrrrrrrrrr. :)


Sent from my free Obama Phone
 
PeanuckleCRJ said:
A number of DC-10-10s and -30s were converted by FDX to the MD-11 cockpit, thus the "MD-10" name. It carries the "MD-10-10" and "MD-10-30" name was appropriate. (I believe with the F?).
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, Dimension Aviation at the small KGYR in the SW metro Phoenix valley did the actual conversions for most of the planes for Fedex, both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The converted airframes were ex- AA and UAL birds. I got to see a number of birds in various stages of conversion at their facility there in the mid 2000s. Very interesting to see how it was done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top