9 ms·

tldw, per Blancolirio: unstable approach, crew should have done a go around at 1000 agl but did not attempt one until it was too late, then aborted the go aroun

tldw, per Blancolirio: unstable approach, crew should have done a go around at 1000 agl but did not attempt one until it was too late, then aborted the go around.

bdamm 6d ago
The "hazardous attitudes" study in this report will be gold.
- cyanydeez 6d ago
  "Capitalism caused this crash"
  - loeg 6d ago
    Ah, yes, the Soviets never took risks. It couldn't be that humans are fallible.
    - cyanydeez 6d ago
      telling yourselves that it was "communism" that did this as opposed to the stark raving lunancy of the current American regime is hilarious misunderstanding of political ideals.
      - loeg 5d ago
        No buddy. I'm just saying it wasn't "capitalism," which was your claim. I don't think you can pin this on Trump or his admin, either.
    - rbanffy 5d ago
      If there was pressure to arrive quickly (hence the high airspeed) or not do a go-around for whatever profit-related reasons, then I would say need to profit was involved in the decision making process that led to this. When you take resource consumption out of the equation, you are more free to make lower-risk decisions.
deleted 6d ago
[deleted]
wanderingmoose 6d ago
I think the real question is why didn't the pilots do a go around. I bet there are underlying pressures from the airlines and/or amazon to not do a go around to avoid schedule delays or fuel costs.
- cadre_78 6d ago
  Bingo.
- deleted 6d ago
  [deleted]
- pseudosavant 6d ago
  Could a company that won't let delivery drivers stop to pee possibly be pushing their pilots that hard? Yes. Yes, they could.
- randerson 6d ago
  In one of the videos you can see dark clouds behind the plane. I suspect the pilots knew they'd have to divert to a different airport if they couldn't land and put pressure on themselves to not have to do that.
  - loeg 6d ago
    You can go around and try again at the same airport long before you have to divert.
- dghlsakjg 6d ago
  I've never heard of anything even close to this. Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not. Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain with the FAA. On cargo flights in particular timing and fuel usage are less critical than passenger flights, and a go around doesn't affect either much. Pressure to avoid go arounds would also be incredibly counter productive since go arounds exist to preserve life and property. Pilots do go arounds to avoid costly incidents. You are correct that the question is why they didn't do a go around, but I would bet a large sum of money that airline pressure to avoid go arounds was not a factor.
sscaryterry 6d ago
Yep, its also the most intuitive way to reason about it when you look at the data. Unfortunately, a bad call. I'm sure many of us would have made the same mistake.
- lisper 6d ago
  Private pilot here. No, I'm quite sure very few of you here would have made the same mistake as evidenced by the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of aircraft land successfully every day, many of them under much more adverse conditions. This is not a oh-it-could-have-happened-to-anyone kind of screwup, this is a did-this-guy-really-go-through-basic-pilot-training kind of screwup.
  - sscaryterry 6d ago
    [flagged]
    - cjbprime 6d ago
      They made a series of at least ten (and that's kind of charitable) this-must-never-happen mistakes that likely rise to the level of extraordinary criminal negligence, including ignoring checklists, alarms, configuring the plane for landing in general, and basically everything related to safety. You don't have to extend sympathy, just as you don't have to extend sympathy to drunk drivers who kill people.
      - collabs 6d ago
        I am not a pilot and I don't know anything about flying. I can go along with the idea that the pilot / crew made mistakes. So the next obvious question is how do we make sure this does not happen again? Is there anything that can be done at all here?
        cjbprime 6d ago
        Maybe ATC could be expected to revoke landing clearance on extremely obviously unstable approaches? I wonder why that didn't happen.
baggy_trough 6d ago
Obligatory Blancolirio link: https://youtu.be/dcf7n0T3D9c https://youtu.be/dcf7n0T3D9c
stevenwoo 6d ago
Pilot B kept warning pilot A(who was at the controls) that the airspeed was too high and no adjustments were made https://www.npr.org/2026/09/10/g-s1-142664/cargo-plane-miami-crash https://www.npr.org/2026/09/10/g-s1-142664/cargo-plane-miami...
- loeg 6d ago
  Yeah, but it's also Pilot B's job to take over if Pilot A isn't flying safely. He didn't.

tldw, per Blancolirio: unstable approach, crew should have done a go around at 1000 agl but did not attempt one until it was too late, then aborted the go around.

bdamm 6d ago

The "hazardous attitudes" study in this report will be gold.

cyanydeez 6d ago
"Capitalism caused this crash"
- loeg 6d ago
  Ah, yes, the Soviets never took risks. It couldn't be that humans are fallible.
  - cyanydeez 6d ago
    telling yourselves that it was "communism" that did this as opposed to the stark raving lunancy of the current American regime is hilarious misunderstanding of political ideals.
    - loeg 5d ago
      No buddy. I'm just saying it wasn't "capitalism," which was your claim. I don't think you can pin this on Trump or his admin, either.
  - rbanffy 5d ago
    If there was pressure to arrive quickly (hence the high airspeed) or not do a go-around for whatever profit-related reasons, then I would say need to profit was involved in the decision making process that led to this. When you take resource consumption out of the equation, you are more free to make lower-risk decisions.

deleted 6d ago

[deleted]

wanderingmoose 6d ago

I think the real question is why didn't the pilots do a go around. I bet there are underlying pressures from the airlines and/or amazon to not do a go around to avoid schedule delays or fuel costs.

cadre_78 6d ago
Bingo.
deleted 6d ago
[deleted]
pseudosavant 6d ago
Could a company that won't let delivery drivers stop to pee possibly be pushing their pilots that hard? Yes. Yes, they could.
randerson 6d ago
In one of the videos you can see dark clouds behind the plane. I suspect the pilots knew they'd have to divert to a different airport if they couldn't land and put pressure on themselves to not have to do that.
- loeg 6d ago
  You can go around and try again at the same airport long before you have to divert.
dghlsakjg 6d ago
I've never heard of anything even close to this. Airlines in the US do not pressure pilots to avoid go arounds. Pilots in the US do not delegate life or death decisions to ops, especially since the FAA legally holds them accountable for that. All pilots are aware that they are responsible for the decision to go around or not. Any airline found to be pressuring pilots to avoid go arounds would be in a world of pain with the FAA. On cargo flights in particular timing and fuel usage are less critical than passenger flights, and a go around doesn't affect either much. Pressure to avoid go arounds would also be incredibly counter productive since go arounds exist to preserve life and property. Pilots do go arounds to avoid costly incidents. You are correct that the question is why they didn't do a go around, but I would bet a large sum of money that airline pressure to avoid go arounds was not a factor.

sscaryterry 6d ago

Yep, its also the most intuitive way to reason about it when you look at the data. Unfortunately, a bad call. I'm sure many of us would have made the same mistake.

lisper 6d ago
Private pilot here. No, I'm quite sure very few of you here would have made the same mistake as evidenced by the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of aircraft land successfully every day, many of them under much more adverse conditions. This is not a oh-it-could-have-happened-to-anyone kind of screwup, this is a did-this-guy-really-go-through-basic-pilot-training kind of screwup.
- sscaryterry 6d ago
  [flagged]
  - cjbprime 6d ago
    They made a series of at least ten (and that's kind of charitable) this-must-never-happen mistakes that likely rise to the level of extraordinary criminal negligence, including ignoring checklists, alarms, configuring the plane for landing in general, and basically everything related to safety. You don't have to extend sympathy, just as you don't have to extend sympathy to drunk drivers who kill people.
    - collabs 6d ago
      I am not a pilot and I don't know anything about flying. I can go along with the idea that the pilot / crew made mistakes. So the next obvious question is how do we make sure this does not happen again? Is there anything that can be done at all here?
      - cjbprime 6d ago
        Maybe ATC could be expected to revoke landing clearance on extremely obviously unstable approaches? I wonder why that didn't happen.

baggy_trough 6d ago

Obligatory Blancolirio link: https://youtu.be/dcf7n0T3D9c https://youtu.be/dcf7n0T3D9c

stevenwoo 6d ago

Pilot B kept warning pilot A(who was at the controls) that the airspeed was too high and no adjustments were made https://www.npr.org/2026/09/10/g-s1-142664/cargo-plane-miami-crash https://www.npr.org/2026/09/10/g-s1-142664/cargo-plane-miami...

loeg 6d ago
Yeah, but it's also Pilot B's job to take over if Pilot A isn't flying safely. He didn't.