Small plane decided it's time to go to Cuba
09-07-2014 | 05:40 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
Most of us realize that nobody is "immune" to mistakes, and we stay on top of our game and stay sharp to minimize mistakes. PLENTY of "professional" pilots have made plenty of mistakes in the Flying 101 category. Landing at wrong airports, stalling on final, landing in the Everglades (three professionals in that cockpit) over a burned out bulb, some, amongst many, examples. FYI
09-07-2014 | 06:07 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,738
Likes: 5
From: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Was I on board that flight, hoss? 
From the cardiomd files - decompression on a US Air flight.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...mpression.html
Thin air in back was quite noticable.
From the cardiomd files - decompression on a US Air flight.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ma...mpression.html
Thin air in back was quite noticable.
09-07-2014 | 06:51 PM
#43
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 0
From: Window Seat
I think just about everybody is missing the difference between expectations and results.
In my book:
I expect "Professional" pilots to fly to a certain standard, when they don't that's a problem.
I expect "Private" pilots to underperform, mostly due to lack of familiarity, when they perform to a higher standard that's a good thing.
Clear as mud?
In this case whoever was at the controls underperformed for any number of reasons, but at the end of the day they ended up dead. I pointed out a "slow" decompression as a possibility due to the amount of time involved in the scenario. For those who have had pressurization problems or slow decompressions you know what I mean when I say that there is a low of see sawing with a conversation that sounds like "looks like it's under control, oh, no, wait, it's going up again, try the other mode", and so on.
In my book:
I expect "Professional" pilots to fly to a certain standard, when they don't that's a problem.
I expect "Private" pilots to underperform, mostly due to lack of familiarity, when they perform to a higher standard that's a good thing.
Clear as mud?
In this case whoever was at the controls underperformed for any number of reasons, but at the end of the day they ended up dead. I pointed out a "slow" decompression as a possibility due to the amount of time involved in the scenario. For those who have had pressurization problems or slow decompressions you know what I mean when I say that there is a low of see sawing with a conversation that sounds like "looks like it's under control, oh, no, wait, it's going up again, try the other mode", and so on.
09-07-2014 | 07:22 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
From: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
The pilot's first quote is "we have an indication that is not correct in the plane" - if he felt that under no modes could the cabin altitude rise to dangerous levels, when a "Cab Press" alert came on he might have been lackadaisical about it, and simply thought the indication itself wasn't correct.
Being a brand new plane I think it had the G1000, like my plane, as the new TBMs seem to be fit with this system. Not sure how pressurization is managed through this as my plane is not pressurized - does it simply have a delta-P alert or if it displays actual cabin altitude.
I'm guessing he just got a delta-P alert, didn't realize the urgency (thought it was simply an indication not correct), and then was overcome with hypoxia. Shame he didn't wake up on the way down.
Being a brand new plane I think it had the G1000, like my plane, as the new TBMs seem to be fit with this system. Not sure how pressurization is managed through this as my plane is not pressurized - does it simply have a delta-P alert or if it displays actual cabin altitude.
I'm guessing he just got a delta-P alert, didn't realize the urgency (thought it was simply an indication not correct), and then was overcome with hypoxia. Shame he didn't wake up on the way down.
09-07-2014 | 08:38 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
The pilot's first quote is "we have an indication that is not correct in the plane" - if he felt that under no modes could the cabin altitude rise to dangerous levels, when a "Cab Press" alert came on he might have been lackadaisical about it, and simply thought the indication itself wasn't correct.
Being a brand new plane I think it had the G1000, like my plane, as the new TBMs seem to be fit with this system. Not sure how pressurization is managed through this as my plane is not pressurized - does it simply have a delta-P alert or if it displays actual cabin altitude.
I'm guessing he just got a delta-P alert, didn't realize the urgency (thought it was simply an indication not correct), and then was overcome with hypoxia. Shame he didn't wake up on the way down.
Being a brand new plane I think it had the G1000, like my plane, as the new TBMs seem to be fit with this system. Not sure how pressurization is managed through this as my plane is not pressurized - does it simply have a delta-P alert or if it displays actual cabin altitude.
I'm guessing he just got a delta-P alert, didn't realize the urgency (thought it was simply an indication not correct), and then was overcome with hypoxia. Shame he didn't wake up on the way down.
09-07-2014 | 08:43 PM
#47
Working weekends
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,384
Likes: 0
From: Left Seat
As there always is. However if "the bulb issue" [in fairness lets call it a landing gear indication issue] was never an issue, I argue that the accident would have never happened.
With that said, the NTSB said this
ASN Aircraft accident Lockheed L-1011-385-1 TriStar 1 N310EA Everglades, FL
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the fight crew to monitor the flight instruments during the final 4 minutes of flight, and to detect an unexpected descent soon enough to prevent impact with the ground. Preoccupation with a malfunction of the nose landing gear position indicating system distracted the crew's attention from the instruments and allowed the descent to go unnoticed."
With that said, the NTSB said this
ASN Aircraft accident Lockheed L-1011-385-1 TriStar 1 N310EA Everglades, FL
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the fight crew to monitor the flight instruments during the final 4 minutes of flight, and to detect an unexpected descent soon enough to prevent impact with the ground. Preoccupation with a malfunction of the nose landing gear position indicating system distracted the crew's attention from the instruments and allowed the descent to go unnoticed."
09-07-2014 | 08:57 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
As there always is. However if "the bulb issue" [in fairness lets call it a landing gear indication issue] was never an issue, I argue that the accident would have never happened.
With that said, the NTSB said this
ASN Aircraft accident Lockheed L-1011-385-1 TriStar 1 N310EA Everglades, FL
With that said, the NTSB said this
ASN Aircraft accident Lockheed L-1011-385-1 TriStar 1 N310EA Everglades, FL
09-07-2014 | 09:01 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,816
Likes: 5
From: retired 767(dl)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
