7 ms·

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

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 7d ago
Bingo.
deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
pseudosavant 7d 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 7d 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 7d 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.
- jtchang 7d ago
  Southwest airlines had a culture of turning around fast at the gate. So maybe no explicit policy but culture can drive unintended consequences and decisions.
  - waterTanuki 7d ago
    Turnaround at a gate and a life-or-death go-around judgement are two entirely different operations governed by entirely different sections of the FAA. Also this was Amazon, not Southwest.
    - sxde 7d ago
      I think the point being made is that time-pressure can come from a company's culture, not just its (unspoken) policies.
    - thisismyanon2 6d ago
      Southwest's had a few dramatic overruns by pilots overeager to get on the ground, notably at Burbank (no fatalities) and Midway (one death).
  - dghlsakjg 7d ago
    Fast gate turnarounds have nothing to do with what happens in the cockpit. That affects the cleaning crews. Take a look at Southwest's safety record. I believe they have 1 fatality due to an air incident in their history due to an uncontained engine failure that was not related to maintenance.
    - AnimalMuppet 6d ago
      1 passenger fatality. They also have at least one ground fatality. (Still very impressive!)
- ElProlactin 7d ago
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety-record/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety... > The Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo plane that crashed off a Miami runway on Sunday, killing five people, was operated by a North Carolina company that has been accused by past employees of violating safety regulations, legal documents reveal. There's a lot in the article, but this allegation is worth highlighting: > Seuring's attorney, Michael Anello, told the judge that another 21 Air pilot, Johnny Salmonson, "was being pressured to fly in periods of time that were too short to comply with the proper amounts of rest, and that implicated safety. The layovers were too short."
bayarearefugee 7d ago
[flagged]
- Twirrim 7d ago
  The branding on the plane is Prime Air, but it's not actually Amazon owned and run. Instead it's a cargo airline (21 Air) that they contract with to operate cargo flights with Prime Air livery on the planes. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the NTSB investigation, they're usually quite thorough.
  - psunavy03 7d ago
    CH Robinson, though, just lost a lawsuit at the Supreme Court with similar premises. They are a freight forwarder and third-party logistics outfit that contracts large amounts of capacity with subcontractors (airlines, trucking companies, shipping lines, etc.) and sells a complete package to their clients. One of CHR's service providers was conducting hiring shenanigans and not fully, legally screening their drivers. One of the service provider's drivers hit another vehicle and crippled that vehicle's driver, who sued. CHR argued all liability should fall on the trucking company who hired the driver. The Supreme Court said no, CHR could be held liable for negligence in vetting their service provider as well, because it was ultimately CHR's load being carried. I'm not a lawyer, but under that legal precedent, it seems Amazon might not be off the hook for damages in this case, given it was their subcontractor who was carrying Amazon cargo in a jet with "Prime Air" on the side.
jmward01 7d ago
I suspect the pilots knew it wasn't a great approach but it just didn't click how bad it was. They just felt committed to the approach and thought they could 'fix it' without realizing how bad things really were. Having good enough situational awareness that you wave off when you are supposed to generally means that you also aren't wildly off speed/other parameters. They clearly had lost situational awareness. The thing that amazes me about this is the timeline here: 00:30 The nose and right main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots. ... 00:19 The left main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 134 knots. 00:15 A pilot called for a go-around. 11 seconds and 24 knots after the nose touched down and then the left main finally also touched down? Wow. Then 4 seconds after all that the go-around. It is one thing to hold the nose off for that long, but a main mount?!
- loeg 6d ago
  How did they ignore the descent rate and speed? They were absolutely diving at the ground. It's just such an elementary mistake.
dmazzoni 6d ago
This is based on my understanding from several pilots who have weighted in. The cockpit voice recorder transcript has the copilot repeatedly saying "we're coming in too fast" but the pilot never clearly acknolwedges. The copilot ought to have been more assertive and said "We need to go around. NOW." The pilot shouldn't have needed that. He should have made the call himself, but even if he was unsure, once his copilot called that he should have done the right thing. Neither of them will ever fly again. The only question now is if either of them will go to prison. There's already a civil wrongful death lawsuit against them.
- rogerrogerr 6d ago
  > Neither of them will ever fly again Why do you say this so confidently? Aviation generally does not have a culture of taking future employment away from people proximate to accidents. Seems likely the FO will be fine. The CA will have some hard questions to answer.
schrectacular 6d ago
Normalization of deviance. While there may have been some pressure from corporate or whatever, my guess is that the pilot flying was the one who only got his type rating a few months ago and that he'd done this at least a few times before in another type and gotten away with it. Now in a bigger, less nimble craft, he didn't.

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 7d ago

Bingo.

deleted 7d ago

[deleted]

pseudosavant 7d 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 7d 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 7d 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.

jtchang 7d ago
Southwest airlines had a culture of turning around fast at the gate. So maybe no explicit policy but culture can drive unintended consequences and decisions.
- waterTanuki 7d ago
  Turnaround at a gate and a life-or-death go-around judgement are two entirely different operations governed by entirely different sections of the FAA. Also this was Amazon, not Southwest.
  - sxde 7d ago
    I think the point being made is that time-pressure can come from a company's culture, not just its (unspoken) policies.
  - thisismyanon2 6d ago
    Southwest's had a few dramatic overruns by pilots overeager to get on the ground, notably at Burbank (no fatalities) and Midway (one death).
- dghlsakjg 7d ago
  Fast gate turnarounds have nothing to do with what happens in the cockpit. That affects the cleaning crews. Take a look at Southwest's safety record. I believe they have 1 fatality due to an air incident in their history due to an uncontained engine failure that was not related to maintenance.
  - AnimalMuppet 6d ago
    1 passenger fatality. They also have at least one ground fatality. (Still very impressive!)
ElProlactin 7d ago
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety-record/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/miami-plane-crash-21-air-safety... > The Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767 cargo plane that crashed off a Miami runway on Sunday, killing five people, was operated by a North Carolina company that has been accused by past employees of violating safety regulations, legal documents reveal. There's a lot in the article, but this allegation is worth highlighting: > Seuring's attorney, Michael Anello, told the judge that another 21 Air pilot, Johnny Salmonson, "was being pressured to fly in periods of time that were too short to comply with the proper amounts of rest, and that implicated safety. The layovers were too short."

bayarearefugee 7d ago

[flagged]

Twirrim 7d ago
The branding on the plane is Prime Air, but it's not actually Amazon owned and run. Instead it's a cargo airline (21 Air) that they contract with to operate cargo flights with Prime Air livery on the planes. It'll be interesting to see the outcome of the NTSB investigation, they're usually quite thorough.
- psunavy03 7d ago
  CH Robinson, though, just lost a lawsuit at the Supreme Court with similar premises. They are a freight forwarder and third-party logistics outfit that contracts large amounts of capacity with subcontractors (airlines, trucking companies, shipping lines, etc.) and sells a complete package to their clients. One of CHR's service providers was conducting hiring shenanigans and not fully, legally screening their drivers. One of the service provider's drivers hit another vehicle and crippled that vehicle's driver, who sued. CHR argued all liability should fall on the trucking company who hired the driver. The Supreme Court said no, CHR could be held liable for negligence in vetting their service provider as well, because it was ultimately CHR's load being carried. I'm not a lawyer, but under that legal precedent, it seems Amazon might not be off the hook for damages in this case, given it was their subcontractor who was carrying Amazon cargo in a jet with "Prime Air" on the side.

jmward01 7d ago

I suspect the pilots knew it wasn't a great approach but it just didn't click how bad it was. They just felt committed to the approach and thought they could 'fix it' without realizing how bad things really were. Having good enough situational awareness that you wave off when you are supposed to generally means that you also aren't wildly off speed/other parameters. They clearly had lost situational awareness. The thing that amazes me about this is the timeline here: 00:30 The nose and right main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots. ... 00:19 The left main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 134 knots. 00:15 A pilot called for a go-around. 11 seconds and 24 knots after the nose touched down and then the left main finally also touched down? Wow. Then 4 seconds after all that the go-around. It is one thing to hold the nose off for that long, but a main mount?!

loeg 6d ago
How did they ignore the descent rate and speed? They were absolutely diving at the ground. It's just such an elementary mistake.

dmazzoni 6d ago

This is based on my understanding from several pilots who have weighted in. The cockpit voice recorder transcript has the copilot repeatedly saying "we're coming in too fast" but the pilot never clearly acknolwedges. The copilot ought to have been more assertive and said "We need to go around. NOW." The pilot shouldn't have needed that. He should have made the call himself, but even if he was unsure, once his copilot called that he should have done the right thing. Neither of them will ever fly again. The only question now is if either of them will go to prison. There's already a civil wrongful death lawsuit against them.

rogerrogerr 6d ago
> Neither of them will ever fly again Why do you say this so confidently? Aviation generally does not have a culture of taking future employment away from people proximate to accidents. Seems likely the FO will be fine. The CA will have some hard questions to answer.

schrectacular 6d ago

Normalization of deviance. While there may have been some pressure from corporate or whatever, my guess is that the pilot flying was the one who only got his type rating a few months ago and that he'd done this at least a few times before in another type and gotten away with it. Now in a bigger, less nimble craft, he didn't.