Egypt Air flight MS804 missing!
Discussion
SilverSpur said:
How quickly could the pilots be incapacitated if there was some kind of electrical fire? Could they have been overcome in seconds?
I just don't understand a total lack of comms. They had just been speaking to atc in Greece, how long does it take to open a mic and just say "we're in trouble it's a fire?" Or "we smell smoke in the cockpit".
I know the keyboard pilots say 'aviatiate first' but I think it's a sign of reluctance by the pilots to immediately declare an issue rather than ponder what to do. Obviously if it's a violent incident like a bomb they won't have a chance, but you see issues developing when watching the reconstructions on Air Crash investigation program and it's clear that the pilots often have plenty of time to declare a problem long before they crash but often don't.
It's not like they have to 'just pop down to the radio room' to make a call, the button to broadcast is at hand.
Pride perhaps?
Agree with all of that. I just don't understand a total lack of comms. They had just been speaking to atc in Greece, how long does it take to open a mic and just say "we're in trouble it's a fire?" Or "we smell smoke in the cockpit".
I know the keyboard pilots say 'aviatiate first' but I think it's a sign of reluctance by the pilots to immediately declare an issue rather than ponder what to do. Obviously if it's a violent incident like a bomb they won't have a chance, but you see issues developing when watching the reconstructions on Air Crash investigation program and it's clear that the pilots often have plenty of time to declare a problem long before they crash but often don't.
It's not like they have to 'just pop down to the radio room' to make a call, the button to broadcast is at hand.
Pride perhaps?
Probably a case of trying to avoid having to call ATC unless they really have to - trying to avoid looking like flappy pilots, and then events taking over, by which time it's too late.
Mabbs9 said:
Sorry, a bit sarcastic in hindsight. That would be a poor approach to the problem.
Regards.
It's nothing to do with OUR discussion.Regards.
It's to do with the jobs of accident investigators and the families of those whos loved ones are now missing without a clue.
All the pilot had to do was say "fire" or "bomb" whatever.
Like the quoted post above says... they often can but don't for one reason or another.
SilverSpur said:
So if you could, go re read my previous comment. I'm talking about multiple examples of reconstructions that show pilots have plenty of time to open the mic whilst an emerging situation is developing, we simply do not know enough yet about this weeks crash. Even the Concorde incident which took less than two minutes to unfold has the pilot open the mic and declare his intentions to try to make le bourget whilst the plane is crashing in flames.
I'm not sure you're quite aware as to the can of worms you open up when you tell ATC you have a problem. You're assuming they all speak perfect English and are as switched on as the guys controlling Northern Europe. In many parts of the world making a wishy-washy call saying you have a problem simply leads to confusion and endless questioning from the controller. In my experience it's usually best to say nothing until you start affecting other traffic or have a full picture as to what is going on, or in the cases you mention, a crash is imminent. I'm not sure that's the case, why radio to ATC with every problem when the time can better be spent trying to fix the problem and fly the aircraft. Doesn't make any sense.
It's not like a controller in an office can do anything about it.
Are people on here seriously suggesting pilots should radio in first whenever they get an issue?
It's not like a controller in an office can do anything about it.
Are people on here seriously suggesting pilots should radio in first whenever they get an issue?
SilverSpur said:
There are many examples where planes went down and couldn't be found for hours and hours because no one put out a distress call when clearly they could have before hand.
Sullenburger was on the radio well before he ditched the plane in the Hudson when he lost his engines. In fact I'm pretty sure he was straight on the radio. He told atc where he was going to put it down.
Sullenberger wasn't straight on the radio. He started by following ANCC, but then task prioritisation took over. Sullenburger was on the radio well before he ditched the plane in the Hudson when he lost his engines. In fact I'm pretty sure he was straight on the radio. He told atc where he was going to put it down.
Incident happened at 13 seconds past the minute; he took control 10 seconds later - AVIATE
Loss of thrust on both engines requires immediate memory items and so, after diagnosis, the checklist (CL) was called for - CHECK.
35 seconds after the bird strike ATC gave a radar heading which probably prompted the Mayday call. This is where navigation becomes a priority. IMO the Mayday call may not have happened at this point had ATC not called. This takes care of NAVIGATE.
It was 60 seconds after the initial incident that Sullenberger suggested the possibility that they may end up in the Hudson. Again, it was in response to an ATC question regarding which airport they could make. We don't know whether he'd have offered that information at that point or later on had ATC not initiated contact. Once the aircraft is under control you have more capacity to communicate. For the Pilot Flying (PF) there will be several pauses where you can offer information to ATC. The Pilot Non Flying (PNF) will be extremely task saturated trying to restart the engines.
When they ran out of time and height both pilots switch focus to configuring the aircraft for a ditching - AVIATE and NAVIGATE and CHECK (Ditching CL). They no longer reply to ATC stops either because it's no longer a priority or because they're not receiving transmissions; I'm not sure which.
I think using this example to make a general point regarding all emergencies isn't really valid. It's a good example of what to do in this instance alone. Generally, one the flying and navigating parts are taken care of you can start of focus on the rest. AF447 didn't and a few of the recent accidents weren't able to move past the AVIATE part.
Edited by pushthebutton on Sunday 22 May 11:38
xjay1337 said:
I think you should alert ATC to any possible issues
Because if they are like
"we have a fire ... blah blah blah".
Emergency services can be scrambled to a predicted location where the plane is likely to sit down.
Instead we have no real idea where the plane went down, or what happened.
They could have said "we had a fire break out in a cargo hold, there was a bang and then flames, we are losing control of the aircraft" could point towards a bomb or other device.
"a fire has broken out in the nose cone, we are trying to solve the problem" - could point to an electrical issue or a maintenance issue.
Instead there are 70 families who don't have answers as well as millions of people world wide who are becoming afraid of flying because it seems every other month there is another plane crash, and we have tens of thousands of people on internet message boards spouting off opinions.
Instead we have a knats knob of a clue.
I want the pilot to fly the plane first everything else is secondary, thankfully that's the protocol. Because if they are like
"we have a fire ... blah blah blah".
Emergency services can be scrambled to a predicted location where the plane is likely to sit down.
Instead we have no real idea where the plane went down, or what happened.
They could have said "we had a fire break out in a cargo hold, there was a bang and then flames, we are losing control of the aircraft" could point towards a bomb or other device.
"a fire has broken out in the nose cone, we are trying to solve the problem" - could point to an electrical issue or a maintenance issue.
Instead there are 70 families who don't have answers as well as millions of people world wide who are becoming afraid of flying because it seems every other month there is another plane crash, and we have tens of thousands of people on internet message boards spouting off opinions.
Instead we have a knats knob of a clue.
xjay1337 said:
It's nothing to do with OUR discussion.
It's to do with the jobs of accident investigators and the families of those whos loved ones are now missing without a clue.
All the pilot had to do was say "fire" or "bomb" whatever.
Like the quoted post above says... they often can but don't for one reason or another.
And you're receiving info here from several commercial and military pilots but you still have a better way of doing it. Slightly exasperating so I'll bow out.It's to do with the jobs of accident investigators and the families of those whos loved ones are now missing without a clue.
All the pilot had to do was say "fire" or "bomb" whatever.
Like the quoted post above says... they often can but don't for one reason or another.
Derek Smith said:
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Just accept what you are being told by people who do this for a living FFS.
Why, in this environment of encyclopedic knowledge on all matters, should your job be different from, for instance, policing?
I suspect the reactions of xjay1337, M4cruiser et al. are simply a reflection of their own basic neurotic misgivings about flying.
Apart from circumstances when you want to make sure every other bugger is staying out of your way, when it all goes tits up there isn't anything to be gained from mashing the transmit button as opposed to addressing the immediate problem at hand, and - curiously enough from very recent experience - you don't tend to dwell upon trying to posthumously make the accident investigator's job easier at the expense of trying to make sure you're still around to have a hand in writing the report yourself.
xjay1337 said:
It's nothing to do with OUR discussion.
It's to do with the jobs of accident investigators and the families of those whos loved ones are now missing without a clue.
All the pilot had to do was say "fire" or "bomb" whatever.
Like the quoted post above says... they often can but don't for one reason or another.
Seriously? OK next time you crash make sure you phone 999 during the slide and note your exact position and what happened so they know where to come. It's to do with the jobs of accident investigators and the families of those whos loved ones are now missing without a clue.
All the pilot had to do was say "fire" or "bomb" whatever.
Like the quoted post above says... they often can but don't for one reason or another.
I mean, what are you thinking?
kapiteinlangzaam said:
Well, im telling you as an Air Traffic Controller (the same as pilots have already told you), it should not (and will not, ever be) mandated to call ATC. Its probably job 99 on a list of 100 things to do.
We CAN NOT HELP the pilot, particularly in an en-route environment. If its going that tits up, there is zero point in speaking to me as an ATCO. If its going slightly less tits up and youve got things under control and have the time to make a plan of action, then I might be able to help you out....
Just accept what you are being told by people who do this for a living FFS.
^ this a hundred times overWe CAN NOT HELP the pilot, particularly in an en-route environment. If its going that tits up, there is zero point in speaking to me as an ATCO. If its going slightly less tits up and youve got things under control and have the time to make a plan of action, then I might be able to help you out....
Just accept what you are being told by people who do this for a living FFS.
xjay1337 said:
if the issue results in a plane crashing yes they should radio atc
ffs i cant believe you think otherwise
You've had it explained to you so many many times now. I get you don't really know much about it and that's great that you come on here to learn but why keep repeating the same thing? ffs i cant believe you think otherwise
I'm not explaining it any more. I'm sure others are fed up of doing it also.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff