Amazon Freighter Runway Overrun, Fire, MIA, 9/6

geezer said:
I am going to cut those pilots some slack.




The Amazon pilots were probably not aware of the safety interlocks that prevented thrust reverser deployment until landing gear signaled all wheels firmly on the ground.

The lift killing slats have similar safety interlocks, and did not deploy. I suspect that both were selected.
Click to expand...
I'm not cutting them any slack. Auto spoilers interlocks were not met but you can move the handle and get spoilers.
 
Skymac said:
So I own a flight school, and, am a 91 corporate pilot flying jets.

My thoughts are, while, yes several hired in the last 5 years could be questionable, I also think they may be some of the safest. Again, NOT a blanket statement and we have many in the industry that are great mentors and educators.

However I’ve seen many times the fact you have someone under 40 questioning a “captain” over 45/50 and they either stay quite or say something and get squashed, and if you think it’s not real, you’re part of the problem.

It’s no different with all these GA insurance forms and quotes either. That system is broken too. While I’m at it, toss the unions too…. :)
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the accident aircraft pilot group is non union.

Not sure why you think unions are part of the problem. I have a love hate relationship with them on most issues. In my experience they help a lot and hinder sometimes. Overall a positive impact to safety.
 
geezer said:
I am going to cut those pilots some slack.



Amazon coming back from Puerto Rico, is going to be near or totally empty of cargo and fuel.

A string off LOADED airliners made successful transits through the weather, and landed = Peer pressure.

The G forces the pilots of the empty plane endured going through the thunderstorm could have been more than twice what the aircrews ahead of them endured

Those passenger plane pilots were PROBABLY more experienced, and better trained in the aircraft they were flying.

The Amazon pilots were probably not aware of the safety interlocks that prevented thrust reverser deployment until landing gear signaled all wheels firmly on the ground.

The lift killing slats have similar safety interlocks, and did not deploy. I suspect that both were selected.

At their speed, and empty, they did not have both gear loaded at the same time until the runway ran out.



From our armchairs, clearly they should have gone around, been vectored to a holding pattern until they could be fitted back in the approach flow. If their pre landing brief included an assessment of fuel remaining, there may have been a strong incentive to get it on the ground, full reverse thrust, slats, and max brakes.



With both reversers and slats selected, they may have feared an even worse outcome if a go around was attempted.

With the “Unstable” approach documented by the ADSB, they were well beaten up, and may have been near wings level most of that time. They would have had an understandable desire to get on the ground.



I have been in a Super Constellation airliner which flew through a violent thunderstorm, and watched the wings flap up and down, when that was the largest airliner flying. When we deplaned, the Captain was not at the traditional location at the door, thanking us for flying with him and his airline (Delta).


If no one died, this would not be such a tough outcome.
Click to expand...
I won’t give them slack. I’ll learn from it a try real dang hard not to be that guy myself. But no slack. They own this event
 
geezer said:
The Amazon pilots were probably not aware of the safety interlocks that prevented thrust reverser
Click to expand...

If that’s true, we are WAY overthinking it…

I remember Southwest pulling up to a (auto) gas station or two, this sort of thing has been a BIG deal for a LONG time.

You can get by with walking out on a ramp and not recognizing your aircraft type, but not this. ESPECIALLY with ACARS, focqua (however that acronym goes), ADSB, cameras and karens everywhere, stable approach is VERY prevalent.

A buddy of mine did a very aggressive (and impressive) sidestep in a md80 (career c-17 guy, no big deal to him) at the worlds smallest 121 carrier, it was on YouTube in HOURS.

We will likely find its systemic, and nothing will come of it.
 
Ryan F. said:
Thanks for sharing that. Good insight from someone with experience in heavies.

I'm a bit surprised at the runway assignment given the reported weather conditions. Also, I'm not sure I've EVER used RW30 at MIA, not that it means much given I fly bizjets (we are nearly always given 8L/26R or 8R/26L.) A couple of years back we had a crew at my operation refuse a runway at TEB based on the METAR issued just prior to starting the approach - for tailwinds. ATC was initially annoyed, but eventually switched them from RW24 to RW19.
Click to expand...
normal ops in mia. with west winds for the most part everybody coming in on the west and south stars gets 30 and everybody from the north and east stars gets 26r.

when the storms build up over the glades they will switch to the west flow even with a slight tailwind and put everybody on the east and south stars to get them in.
 
geezer said:
I am going to cut those pilots some slack.
Click to expand...
If we truly want to cut them some slack, then we should exercise a little discretion and restraint and refrain from joining the PoA lynch mob.

We may have our hunches, but none of us have all of the facts. Until we do, we should reserve judgment.
 
Roger Wilco said:
If we truly want to cut them some slack, then we should exercise a little discretion and restraint and refrain from joining the PoA lynch mob.

We may have our hunches, but none of us have all of the facts. Until we do, we should reserve judgment.
Click to expand...
i have to disagree on this one, unless some truly wild system failure is found, the important facts are know. they were unstable, fast, and way past the touchdown zone and did not go around. as viper said, "better to select zone five, extend and live to fight another day, you made a bad choice" . i feel for this crew, they are going to have to live with the fact that their bad decision cost five people their lives. but when the dust settles, it was pilot error and nothing else.
 
737steve said:
That's "Captain" Steve.
I have to wonder if he doesn't feel the least bit silly putting on that costume. My uniform got hung up permanently the day I retired. 33 years was enough.
Click to expand...
Steve seems to "dumb down" his content; my non-pilot brother likes him. I'd rather listen to Juan rant. And sometimes even to DG, if I want a laugh.
 
Listened to the ATC recordings. Those pilots are gonna get deported and the company investigated
 
737steve said:
That's "Captain" Steve.
I have to wonder if he doesn't feel the least bit silly putting on that costume. My uniform got hung up permanently the day I retired. 33 years was enough.
Click to expand...

The combi cover with the scrambled eggs in the background just makes it that much more over the top!
 
Is there anyway for airspeed indicationS to be operational but erroneous, showing slower than actual speed?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Is there anyway for airspeed indicationS to be operational but erroneous, showing slower than actual speed?
Click to expand...
It would require multiple airspeed indicators to be wrong ... or some lack of communication, if one was reading differently than the other.
 
unsafervguy said:
i have to disagree on this one ... it was pilot error and nothing else.
Click to expand...
And thus it may prove to be. But it takes no small amount of arrogance and hubris to make such a statement in public, before all of the pieces of the puzzle are found and assembled, and the accused have been heard. Does it make you feel somehow superior to those airmen to have rendered your judgement here in this meaningless corner of the Internet? Are you now more secure in your self-image as the consummate aviator?

"He among you humans is wisest who, like Socrates, knows that he’s really worth nothing when it comes to wisdom." --Socrates
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Is there anyway for airspeed indicationS to be operational but erroneous, showing slower than actual speed?
Click to expand...
Unlikely but even if this did happen, it doesn't excuse overshooting the touchdown zone, which is 3,000 ft. long, by a purported extra 3,000 ft, and not calling for a go-around.
 
Tools said:
They had to be so far into startle response mode that hypothesizing about anything is fruitless.
Click to expand...

Unless it turns out there was a fire or some other perceived serious issue that required (unannounced) speeding down to the threshold in an attempt to get on the runway, I think they were way past the startle response zone of WTH is happening now...
 
Does anyone see criminal negligence charges coming from this accident?
I imagine the flight crew has Lawyered up already.

Edit: News reported Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office is investigating the accident which with fatal auto deaths would be expected.

“A fatal accident transitions into a criminal investigation the moment law enforcement finds evidence of intentional harm, gross negligence, or a severe violation of statutory laws.”
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
The lift killing slats have similar safety interlocks, and did not deploy. I suspect that both were selected.


From our armchairs, clearly they should have gone around, been vectored to a holding pattern until they could be fitted back in the approach flow. If their pre landing brief included an assessment of fuel remaining, there may have been a strong incentive to get it on the ground, full reverse thrust, slats, and max brakes.

With both reversers and slats selected, they may have feared an even worse outcome if a go around was attempted.
Click to expand...
Just for clarification, the slats are leading edge devices that increase lift at low speeds.
The upper surface of the wing will have flight spoilers and ground spoilers. Those are the large panels that pop up on touchdown. They will reduce lift and increase drag.
They can have quite an effect on stopping distance.
 
AquaLand said:
Short answer: no. When was the last time a commercial pilot was criminally charged for an aircraft accident in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Probably be smart for Amazon to quickly settle with the victims and get this behind them.
I do know it was an independent contractor.
 
bonefishpete said:
Does anyone see criminal negligence charges coming from this accident?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't we need to know the cause in order to answer that?
bonefishpete said:
Probably be smart for Amazon to quickly settle with the victims and get this behind them.
Click to expand...
Why would Amazon want to settle before anyone knows if it was at fault? And would it have any liability, regardless?
 
Lindberg said:
Wouldn't we need to know the cause in order to answer that?

Why would Amazon want to settle before anyone knows if it was at fault? And would it have any liability, regardless?
Click to expand...

The aircraft left airport property through a fence across a
public road and killed 5 people what cause would make that acceptable?
I'm talking who's liable. The NTSB will find out the cause.

In one or two years maybe we'll find out the cause though from limited video it seems obvious.
 
Last edited:
bonefishpete said:
Does anyone see criminal negligence charges coming from this accident?
I imagine the flight crew has Lawyered up already.

Edit: News reported Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office is investigating the accident which with fatal auto deaths would be expected.

“A fatal accident transitions into a criminal investigation the moment law enforcement finds evidence of intentional harm, gross negligence, or a severe violation of statutory laws.”
Click to expand...
Law enforcement responds to, and investigates, pretty much all aircraft crashes when there are injuries or fatalities, or property damage other than the plane. Even a fender-bender report can be classified as a criminal investigation because part of the process is determining if any laws were violated. So, by definition, the police are conducting a criminal investigation. It does not at all mean that they immediately suspected criminal wrongdoing.
 
bonefishpete said:
Does anyone see criminal negligence charges coming from this accident?
Click to expand...
No. You'll find the aviation side is set up different in the US which is why you rarely see criminal charges applied to pilots. Other countries not so much. Where the liability and negligence tends to be dealt with on the civil side. And as you point out, Air 21, the operator of the 767 is at the pointy end of the libel side as a contractor. However, there are certain complexities that can draw Amazon in depending on how much control that contractor. And to note, local law enforcement has been known to open separate investigations on aircraft accidents whether it involves vehicles are not.

Regardless, I doubt Amazon is ready to write any checks at the moment, same as with the last Prime 767 accident in TX, which might give some insight on what direction this investigation may take.
 
Curious to hear about the 72-hour lookback. Heck, at some of these, their entire 28-day/bid lookback would be a fun read, especially for these 120.5 outfits.

This was a decisional error regarding wind assessment for landing, neophyte levels of [lack of] airspeed control, and equally wild level of atrophied reaction time, bordering on impairment-equivalent. For this to happen in the middle of the day, either:

1) these two were so left-sigma they'd get killed in short time if left unsupervised on a single pilot operation, but a hot hiring market allowed them bypass or leakthru without having to prove that negative,
or..
2) were so sleep-debt/circadian-wacked out of their minds it'd probably be illegal for to drive home at the end of that pairing.

I really hope it's #2. But unfortunate to say #1 is also possible. The amount of tryhards plugging the hole in these crap-schedule employers would surprise a lot of people; we're not exactly dealing with the alternate crew list of the Artemis here.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Curious to hear about the 72-hour lookback. Heck, at some of these, their entire 28-day/bid lookback would be a fun read, especially for these 120.5 outfits.

This was a decisional error regarding wind assessment for landing, neophyte levels of [lack of] airspeed control, and equally wild level of atrophied reaction time, bordering on impairment-equivalent. For this to happen in the middle of the day, either:

1) these two were so left-sigma they'd get killed in short time if left unsupervised on a single pilot operation, but a hot hiring market allowed them bypass or leakthru without having to prove that negative,
or..
2) were so sleep-debt/circadian-wacked out of their minds it'd probably be illegal for to drive home at the end of that pairing.

I really hope it's #2. But unfortunate to say #1 is also possible. The amount of tryhards plugging the hole in these crap-schedule employers would surprise a lot of people; we're not exactly dealing with the alternate crew list of the Artemis here.
Click to expand...
I'm going with #1
 
bonefishpete said:
The aircraft left airport property through a fence across a
public road and killed 5 people what cause would make that acceptable?
Click to expand...
So res ipsa loquitur?
bonefishpete said:
I'm talking who's liable. The NTSB will find out the cause.
Click to expand...
How could you know who's liable at this point?
bonefishpete said:
In one or two years maybe we'll find out the cause though from limited video it seems obvious.
Click to expand...
Sure. It's always obvious, except when it isn't.
 
Lindberg said:
So res ipsa loquitur?

How could you know who's liable at this point?

Sure. It's always obvious, except when it isn't.
Click to expand...

I would say a lot are obvious in days especially the weather related ones.
Say VFR into IMC conditions.
 
As so often before, Juan Browne's (Blancolirio) initial analysis is insightful. He emphasizes the evidence of a highly unstable approach (variable but mostly way high descent rate on final) and high speed and floating on touchdown, preventing automated deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. Some of it is speculative but seems mostly valid to me.


HHH MD

States Flown.jpg
 
Hunter Handsfield said:
As so often before, Juan Browne's (Blancolirio) initial analysis is insightful. He emphasizes the evidence of a highly unstable approach (variable but mostly way high descent rate on final) and high speed and floating on touchdown, preventing automated deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers. Some of it is speculative but seems mostly valid to me.


HHH MD

View attachment 154849
Click to expand...
That's not the correct video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEB
It’s amazing how many pilots have never found a nice long runway to practice tailwind landings. Just a few knots really affects how the plane handles. If you haven’t done one, you should get out and try one with a good CFI.
 
ADM is super important, this isn't an anti-ADM post, but at some point, ADM and actual skill have to balance each other out. Good ADM can get you all the way to the runway, but flying a stable approach, having a sense of what the plane is doing, "feeling" the aircraft and making corrections for changing wind conditions, etc... all directly correlate to your ability to purely fly the plane. Then, it comes back to ADM on making a go-around decision, but the best ADM in the world doesn't guarantee you a greaser landing on the spot.
 
" the Captain abandons the FO, jumps out the entrance door, and runs off after killing five people. I just really have no words for that…"

You think this really happened? Does look like it.
 
ADM not required. It’s simple stabilized approach criteria. If not landed by end of landing zone, go around. Who cares WHY? Just do it…

The six yr old daughter of one of the tandem instructors where I flew jumpers wanted to set in the front seat of the jump plane. I had to do something quickly then ran up there (caravan size plane, PAC-750XL), she was standing between front seats, kinda looking confused. I said go ahead and jump in the seat…

She asked how? It says right there, “do not stand”… you know, in the place where I stepped for a solid year to get in the seat. A six yr old saw it and I never paid attention!

This is simple, not landed by end of landing zone, go around. A six yr old probably would have.

It’s like V1… even if the plane is raging on fire, you GOTTA go, and maybe crash. But continuing is guaranteeing a crash. This is airline training kindergarten.

It would be nice to have the feel of the plane, the awesome logical ADM… but it ain’t necessary, this isn’t complicated. I’m sure there a bunch of “factors”, but at least attempting (which I didn’t see) a go around is pretty simple.

It screams to me their startle response threshold was exceeded before they strapped in… what put them there, got no clue.
 
Tools said:
It would be nice to have the feel of the plane, the awesome logical ADM… but it ain’t necessary, this isn’t complicated. I’m sure there a bunch of “factors”, but at least attempting (which I didn’t see) a go around is pretty simple.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what preceded the "didn't go around" is what I'm talking about. Makes me wonder if they DID go around, if the next landing attempt would've been any better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top