Thread

1. ryandrake · 1790993167 · focus · HN ↗

   For those of you who don't read NTSB reports as a hobby, know that Preliminary reports generally do not assign probable cause or list contributory findings. They're usually just full of basic, factual information like the date, time, location, weather, info about the aircraft and pilot, and so on. So don't go into the PDF thinking you're going to learn the cause of the crash.

   1. sippingabonedry · 1791002006 · focus · HN ↗

      The CVR transcript is pretty damning I'm not sure what new details you expect them to uncover.

      The alerts from the GPWS below 1000' signify an unstable approach, you go around, the end.

      What they will investigate is the why they did not go around, but it's largely irrelevant.

      1. radishingr · 1791043310 · focus · HN ↗

         The fundamental question is why they pressed on and what we need to look for in other airlines to avoid this. Why was the FO so unassertive? Was this a common pattern at that airline? Was there pressure from the airline to minimize go-arounds?

         Is this an issue with the re-training of rotor to fixed wing pilots?

         1. rootusrootus · 1791046968 · focus · HN ↗

            > Was there pressure from the airline to minimize go-arounds?

            The thing I've heard from the fine folks on the pilot forums is that for most airlines (granted, passenger airlines, not necessarily cargo), the reverse is usually true. An unstable approach generates a number of these warnings and the plane tattles on the pilot in real time, there will be repercussions for not going around.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.