If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I dunno...it's not like they gave them vectors straight towards the mountian.
ATC can't fly the plane for them.
true but tell me atc doesn't know the area. yes, they were not flying in commercial jetways. but jeez! atc has radar and should be familiar with the vicinity.
years ago i was talking to a controller from miami center. he said that one of the easiest things to do is to NOT have anyone crash into the buildings downtown. just have everyone maintain an altitude above 700' within a certain area.
true but tell me atc doesn't know the area. yes, they were not flying in commercial jetways. but jeez! atc has radar and should be familiar with the vicinity.
years ago i was talking to a controller from miami center. he said that one of the easiest things to do is to NOT have anyone crash into the buildings downtown. just have everyone maintain an altitude above 700' within a certain area.
Agree. There was a minimum altitude within the radius the plane was flying, yet ATC cleared below that. A fatal error. Ultimate responsibility always lies with the pilot, but a huge portion of blame pie goes to ATC in this case IMO.
Maybe the ATC thought that they were visual? The controller stated that theywere over the training zone when he issued the clearence. The training zone is charted GROUND-6000ft.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation
Basically, poor pre-fight planning and briefing, overloaded ATC, distracted crew, and the cherry on the cake: not reacting to the TAWS warnings (the crew thought it might have been a false alarm)
Someday the crews will learn that when you have a stall/terrain/TCAS warning, you first escape from the situation and only then analyze it. Better to pointlessly escape from nothing after a false alarm in which you incorrectly trusted than dying from not escaping from a real threat after a real warning in which you incorrectly didn't trust.
And I know that most crews would do just that: escape then check. But somehow this reaction seems to be not working as reliably for stalls and ground proximity warnings as for TCAS warnings.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
The thing that shocked me most in the crash report was that there was a Navigator on board.
I thought this was strange for 2 reasons;
Firstly I thought the Superjet was designed to be flown by a 2 Person Crew and therefore does not carry a Navigator. Does anyone know in what circumstances the Superjet carries Navigators?
Secondly if there was a Navigator on board then wtf was he doing? Was he on duty? Where was he sitting? I can understand the 2 Pilots may have got distracted talking to the Customers but the Navigator as well? I mean can you picture a situation where TAWS alarms are activating and the Navigator, who basically has very little to do other than ensure the A/C doesn't hit a Mountain, doesn't even bother to check his charts?
I would love to find out from the FDR what this Guy says. Did he recommend they climbed but was overuled, did he tell the Pilots not to worry or did he just say nothing?
Yes, big time.
What does this accident have to do with Indonesian Airlines, other than that airline is based in the same country where the accident happened?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
So there is never a blanket ban on countries? I mean, same country, same standards, mostly same training? I don't see it as rocket science.
If an American Airlines Boeing 767 crashed in Indonesia, would it be related to the fact that Indonesian airlines are banned in Europe?
It was a Sukhoi test airplane operated by Sukhoi itself and flown by Sukhoi's test pilots. And Sukhoi is not Indonesioan.
You are right, it's not roket science.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment