Jeju Air737-800 Crash at MWX (Muan International Airport, South Korea)

[Gabriel]

b) If you experience a runway excursion, e.g. due to a blown tire, runway lenght is irrelevant.

I was answering YOUR point where YOU said "not calculating the new landing distance (risking an overrun due to the increased landing distance)"

[bstolle]

Looks like this wasn't as clear as expected. Runway excursion to the left/right due to a blown tire.
That said, regardless if it's relevant or not, fact is that a new landing distance calculation is required if the configuration changes.

[Evan]

Ah, I see. So if you experience a single engine failure you prefer to endanger the life of all your passengers, your crew and even people on the ground by
not completing the neccessary emergency checklists (e.g. engine shutdown in flight)
not calculating the correct speeds for the single engine landing (or even worse, you land with the originally planned flap setting and speed)
not calculating the new landing distance (risking an overrun due to the increased landing distance)
not performing an emergeny briefing for the passengers.
These are just a few points to consider and chances are that quite a few additional will come to your mind in this situation,
The company will not be happy with your decision and at least there will be a few additional sim sessions and retraining for you IF every thing goes to plan.
If it doesn't, even a small item like a blown tire during the rollout is enough so that things might turn pretty ugly for you fast, as an official accident investigation might start.
You are risking your job and (not only) your life for an event that will not occur with a 99.99% possibility. Your choice and yes, not an easy one to make.

To answer your question (I think this is a question), Yes to all of the above. Risk your job, risk the possible unpleasant job consequences, even risk a lateral runway departure. What I’m saying here is that the PIC must make a risk assessment here, and if the environment is unsafe to continue flying in (flocks of birds present, one engine strike has already occurred, only one engine remaining), landing is the lesser, more survivable risk. Now, as I said, this assumes you are on final, configured and stable with enough energy to make the runway even if you loose the remaining engine.

I hear your concern about answering to your employer (especially if you dent the airplane) and this is a HUGE problem. Consequently, I hope that, after two spectacular dual engine bird strike incidents leading to crashes, a procedure is approved by the FAA that includes LAND ASAP if other conditions are met, and pilots are trained to continue an approach in this situation. Then, no operator could punish their pilots for doing so. And we avoid the next one.

Bird strike remains a fatality risk that cannot be removed with airplane design. It has to be removed in other ways and IMO not nearly enough has been done to find a practical solution. If there is volcanic ash present, they close the airspace. With birds, it’s just an advisory. You might hit birds, loose both engines and related systems, make a forced landing and perish with all souls aboard. Be advised…

[bstolle]

I can't believe that I'm writing this, but I fully agree with your post.

[Evan]

This gets into what investigators term 'framing bias'. When faced with a difficult and stressful situation, pilots will often choose the riskier option that includes the worst possible outcome if that option also provides the best possible outcome. In other words, if option (a) carries the possibility of a total loss of life but might also result in a normal landing (as in continuing on one engine while flying through flocks of birds) and option (b) carries a higher probability of a bad landing and damaging the airplane, multiple injuries and even a small number of fatalities but no catastrophic outcome, pilots often choose option (a). It's human nature. The way to defend against it is to establish and train procedures that call for option (b) and place decisive weight there.

There is actually a scenario where gethereitis works in your favor.

[TeeVee]

This gets into what investigators term 'framing bias'. When faced with a difficult and stressful situation, pilots will often choose the riskier option that includes the worst possible outcome if that option also provides the best possible outcome. In other words, if option (a) carries the possibility of a total loss of life but might also result in a normal landing (as in continuing on one engine while flying through flocks of birds) and option (b) carries a higher probability of a bad landing and damaging the airplane, multiple injuries and even a small number of fatalities but no catastrophic outcome, pilots often choose option (a). It's human nature. The way to defend against it is to establish and train procedures that call for option (b) and place decisive weight there.

There is actually a scenario where gethereitis works in your favor.

And where, pray tell, do these stats come from? your conclusions regarding human nature i dont think are supported by evidence.

THOSE STATS. You make these statements then back them up with "defined by professional accident...." Really? Where? Who?

[Evan]

And where, pray tell, do these stats come from? your conclusions regarding human nature i dont think are supported by evidence.

What stats? I'm referring to a phenomena defined by professional accident investigators derived from research in the area of human psychological factors. Maybe ask them for their "stats".

[Evan]

I'm only aware of 2 double engine failure cases due to birdstrikes, one in 2008 and one in 2009.

Maybe add one to the list: Azores Air A320 yesterday, took off into a flock of birds, ingested into both engines, apparent compressor stalls or surges in both engines, severe vibration and an immediate return. Looks like another brush with disaster handled by a commendable crew.

https://avherald.com/h?article=5225d99c&opt=0

[ATLcrew]

What stats? I'm referring to a phenomena defined by professional accident investigators derived from research in the area of human psychological factors. Maybe ask them for their "stats".

Source, please.

[Evan]

https://skybrary.aero/articles/framing-bias

[Evan]

This is probably a summarization of a paper presented in 1998 by the Nasa Ames Research Center.

A second factor that may increase apparent tolerance of risk is framing. Studies have found that
people tend to be risk averse when outcomes are framed as possible gains, but risk seeking when
outcomes are framed as potential losses (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). This raises the question of
whether deteriorating situations that imply a change of plan, for example, to divert or to go around,
are seen as loss situations and therefore promote risk-seeking behavior. Pilots may be willing to
take a risk with safety (a possible loss) to arrive on time (a sure benefit).

[ATLcrew]

This is probably a summarization of a paper presented in 1998 by the Nasa Ames Research Center.

Probably? It does not seem to come up on database searches...

[Evan]

Probably? It does not seem to come up on database searches...

It seems to originate from a 1986 scholarly publication in the study of human psychology titled Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. If you're really interested, do a Google search for that and you will get plenty of hits.

I have seen this referred to as 'Framing Bias' in aviation investigation reports.

[Evan]

Another twin engine bird strike according to a passenger report:

https://avherald.com/h?article=5227efe1&opt=0

[thor]

it would not be difficult to build a bird like drone to attack plane engines nowadays, just guessing.