Near miss - plane hits the sea and flys away
Discussion
An interesting report this.
Some people were very lucky
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/atr-72-struck-...
Some people were very lucky
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/atr-72-struck-...
Obligatory "I am not a pilot", but WTF?! Turning off ground proximity warnings when there's not enough visibility to see the runway? Is that not criminal negligence/endangerment to life?
Why would you turn off a system that's designed to save your life along with tens of passengers? Or, in low visibility conditions - to assume it's a 'nuisance warning'?
Obviously I don't want to sound like an armchair pilot, but it really does seem massively irresponsible and just completely reckless. Like they weren't bothered if they stuck it into the sea. But they're the ones with degrees and pilot's licences, so there must be a circumstance where what they did was correct? Right?
Why would you turn off a system that's designed to save your life along with tens of passengers? Or, in low visibility conditions - to assume it's a 'nuisance warning'?
Obviously I don't want to sound like an armchair pilot, but it really does seem massively irresponsible and just completely reckless. Like they weren't bothered if they stuck it into the sea. But they're the ones with degrees and pilot's licences, so there must be a circumstance where what they did was correct? Right?
Jaaack said:
Obligatory "I am not a pilot", but WTF?! Turning off ground proximity warnings when there's not enough visibility to see the runway? Is that not criminal negligence/endangerment to life?
Why would you turn off a system that's designed to save your life along with tens of passengers? Or, in low visibility conditions - to assume it's a 'nuisance warning'?
Obviously I don't want to sound like an armchair pilot, but it really does seem massively irresponsible and just completely reckless. Like they weren't bothered if they stuck it into the sea. But they're the ones with degrees and pilot's licences, so there must be a circumstance where what they did was correct? Right?
Their licences may well be of questionable origin like a good portion of PIAs pilots. I guess we might find out in due course unless it gets swept under the carpet.Why would you turn off a system that's designed to save your life along with tens of passengers? Or, in low visibility conditions - to assume it's a 'nuisance warning'?
Obviously I don't want to sound like an armchair pilot, but it really does seem massively irresponsible and just completely reckless. Like they weren't bothered if they stuck it into the sea. But they're the ones with degrees and pilot's licences, so there must be a circumstance where what they did was correct? Right?
Jaaack said:
Obligatory "I am not a pilot", but WTF?! Turning off ground proximity warnings when there's not enough visibility to see the runway? Is that not criminal negligence/endangerment to life?
Why would you turn off a system that's designed to save your life along with tens of passengers? Or, in low visibility conditions - to assume it's a 'nuisance warning'?
Obviously I don't want to sound like an armchair pilot, but it really does seem massively irresponsible and just completely reckless. Like they weren't bothered if they stuck it into the sea. But they're the ones with degrees and pilot's licences, so there must be a circumstance where what they did was correct? Right?
Same. Why would you turn off a system that's designed to save your life along with tens of passengers? Or, in low visibility conditions - to assume it's a 'nuisance warning'?
Obviously I don't want to sound like an armchair pilot, but it really does seem massively irresponsible and just completely reckless. Like they weren't bothered if they stuck it into the sea. But they're the ones with degrees and pilot's licences, so there must be a circumstance where what they did was correct? Right?
Some of the stories you read you like "well, that clearly shouldn't have, but I can sort of see it was complicated" but when your main metric is distance above sea level, and then you crash into the sea.... I mean it's not like it was a sticky out bit of sea was it! Not a surprise that the the big flat wet bit is at around sea level.
Reading it, as a non plane expert, I assumed it was a private plane and amateur pilot. Not a 70 seater full of fare paying passengers!
Daniel
Crossflow Kid said:
essayer said:
the two pilots opposing one another for 9s."
That’s nothing. I’ve done entire tasking days of nearly twelve hours like that.Front Seater - "Er...what are you doing Simon?"
Back Seater - "Er.....what are you doing?"
Together - "Oh Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit"
eharding said:
The opposite isn't great either - this happened to a couple of mates in a Yak, during a particularly sporting dive prior to starting an aerobatic sequence, over what back then was still visibly Greenham Common.
Front Seater - "Er...what are you doing Simon?"
Back Seater - "Er.....what are you doing?"
Together - "Oh Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit"
Front Seater - "Er...what are you doing Simon?"
Back Seater - "Er.....what are you doing?"
Together - "Oh Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit"
very goodA mate who did an exchange tour with the cloggie AIr Force told me they did actually manage to crash an aircraft in similar circumstances in Iraq. Luckily it was flat and a very gentle descent into sand meant it was dents and injured pride rather than crumpled wreckage and body bags.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff