'Pilot error' kills 158 in fireball plane crash

'Pilot error' kills 158 in fireball plane crash

www.timesonline.co.uk

Pilot error was being blamed last night after a Boeing 737-800 overshot a hilltop runway in India, plunged over a cliff and exploded in flames, killing all but eight of the 166 people onboard.

Survivors said it had braked suddenly and veered out of control before the right wing struck an antenna, splitting the plane in two as it careered towards the cliff’s edge.

“I heard a sound and saw smoke quickly fill the plane,” said Umar Farooq, one of the passengers. “A crack appeared on the plane’s bo

(visit the link for the full news article)

More:

The Serbian pilot, Zlatko Glusica, who was said to have flying experience in Britain, was among the 158 dead. He issued no distress signal before landing the flight from Dubai to Mangalore in southwest India at 6.03am in good conditions.

Experts claimed that although he had landed at Mangalore on 19 previous occasions, he appeared to have touched down too far along the 8,000ft runway, missing the “landing threshold” and leaving too little time to stop. Pilot error was a “likely” cause of the disaster, said Kapil Kaul, chief executive of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, a research group.

Just because the guy is dead he becomes an easy target to blame.

I wonder how they are going to inspect the plane itself despite the said "likely" cause.




www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 22-5-2010 by dzonatas]

One of the survivors of the plane stated that when the plane landed, there was a popping sound such as a tire blow out and that is when the plane started to vibrate uncontrollably, eventually splitting in two & the ensuing fireball.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
One of the survivors of the plane stated that when the plane landed, there was a popping sound such as a tire blow out and that is when the plane started to vibrate uncontrollably, eventually splitting in two & the ensuing fireball.

I doubt that this will be reported as the cause of the crash... It will be cheaper on the insurance companies of the airline if they can claim "pilot error" instead of having to fork out for "faulty components" of an aircraft.

Faulty components suggests criminal neglegence with the safety of the plane. "Pilot error" suggests "accident" and therefore smaller payouts.

It's sick, but that seems to be how these people work.

Rats on a plane?

It was also a severe blow to Air India, the national carrier, which lost £830m last year and has been embarrassed by recent reports of pilots and crew scuffling during a flight over Pakistan and rats climbing onboard a plane to Toronto.

Human errors are the cause of almost every aircraft crash. In this case, the control tower would know if the pilot landed too far down the runway, leaving too little distance to stop in. Every pilot is aware that a long landing (also due to pilot error) can be catastrophic and needs to be waved off and another landing attempted. The point at which this decision is made is variable depending on airspeed and runway length, but every pilot should have that magic distance in his head prior to commencing a landing attempt.

The popping noise that was heard could have been due to the pilot "locking up" the brakes when he realized he didn't have enough runway remaining, resulting in blown tires, which would definitely cause vibration and possible loss of control and a dramatic swerve toward the outside edges of the runway.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Rats on a plane?

It was also a severe blow to Air India, the national carrier, which lost £830m last year and has been embarrassed by recent reports of pilots and crew scuffling during a flight over Pakistan and rats climbing onboard a plane to Toronto.

I'm tired of these mother f"in rats on this mother f'in plane..lol sorry

reply to post by dampnickers


Or.....

The Pilot made a mistake and the plane crashed? Not everything in the world is a big evil conspiracy, you know.

It would be easy to prove if he overshot his landing.

I also fail to see how faulty componenets means criminal negligence? Badly maintained parts or people taking short cuts, yes, but a genuine fault? Components break in things all the time without human interference. I'm a telecoms engineer myself and I certainly don't get the blame if a network element I look after develops a fault of it's own volition. Stuff breaks, nothing is perfect.

Also, I fail to see how the cause of the crash would affect any insurance payout. All the insurers care about is responsibility and if it is Pilot error, then that's the airlines.

This seems to go in line with my dream. The aspect of the pilot in my dream was what stood out the most.

This is a topic i posted recently.

Mugwort and Dreams / accurate prediction

[edit on 23-5-2010 by onequestion]

Originally posted by bagari
Human errors are the cause of almost every aircraft crash.

Could the automatic pilot in these plane be further advanced to handle being able to land safely?

That might be significant, yet maybe not a significant as the fuel burn. There is additives in the fuel to minimize the burn, yet in the case they didn't help.

Somehow I think a dry form of fuel would have help. LiH fuel, which produces hydrogen when heated, could be have safety shutoff and isolation methods. The fuel would stay dry unless there is something that burns it. If the case of the fuel tank is protective enough, a crash like this wouldn't ignite the fuel. There wouldn't have been a "liquid" fire bomb.

reply to post by dzonatas


Automatic pilots can land a plane. Humans tend to do it as they can respond better to emergency or unexpected situations, so I'm told anyhoo.

The runway in mangalore is a table top runway. And if I am correct, though ILS is available, the pilots wont go for an instrument landing, they would go for a manual landing, with information from the ILS and glide slope. And being surrounded by mountains, I am not sure whether the pilot had a clear view of the runway in front of him before landing.

OK guys time to get my aviation engineer hat on (because I am one)

To the person that said that they would claim pilot error instead of component failure because it is cheaper for the insurance

rubbish.

The insurance will cover the hull loss and the liabilty per passenger ragardless.

now on to the technical. it was reported that the aircraft landed in rain. on a wet runway.

There was a popping sound

vibration.

Sounds to me like a burst tire

I have been on a plane when that happened.

What were the METARs for the airfield at the time.
What is the runway length?
Whats was the approach profile?
Vs Ref?
Flap Setting?
AOA?
etc

you don;t know do you!??

OK look, this was a BAD accident. Whatever the cause, It will be determined by the Accident investigators, Which will include the NTSB as it is a Boeing aircraft.

We can sit here and surmise, but believe me it is being done now with far more insight on the Pprune boards.

Do you want to try and cite conspiracy with a bunch or professional pilots be my guest!!!

Let the investigators and analysts fo their job, once the get the DFDR and CVR back to the lab.

Accident happen becuase of a chain of event not one single factor. And whoever suggested that this was caused by component failure during after the aircraft had touched down. CLEARLY dose not know what they are talking about.




[edit on 23/505/1010 by JakiusFogg]

reply to post by dzonatas


did you know that it will become mandatory soon for all new build aircraft to have a nitrogen generating system installed?

so call dry fuel has been tested and found not to work.

Even if the ignition source can be stopped it isnt going to help plane that goes barreling down a hill at 100kts now is it>???

You know, even though this doesn't have the appearance of any sort of false flag or anything...when you see the words "pilot error" as the cause for any plane crash you just have to wonder.

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Even if the ignition source can be stopped it isnt going to help plane that goes barreling down a hill at 100kts now is it>???

But, lets point out the total number of loss of lives and how many survivors. Only one was able to be "unscathed." What appears to be the worse thing that happened about this crash, so far, is the fire that caused the death toll.

So close

You want to see just how close things can get????

Planes can be massively forgiving. But sometimes........ it just goes wrong. and it is never just because of one reason alone.

reply to post by dzonatas


Do you know that for a fact??

I am glad you have inside information into the accident soo soon after the event.

Maybe you should called the IAA or the FAA with your insight

reply to post by JakiusFogg


The met department said that there was no rain at the time of landing. Only after the crash, it started to rain. The runway visibility was 6KM. The runway length is nearly 7000 ft. The aircraft seems to have touched down at 2000 ft down the start of the runway and this left him only 5000 ft for braking.

This reminds me of the Air France incident at Toronto and the American Airlines at Little Rock. Maybe the thrust reversers failed to activate or there was a delay in activating them.

reply to post by peacejet


Different aircraft type. and in that one (as in others) the T/R was locked out. but really a lack of thrust reversers should not have been an issue, I have been on sooooo many landings where they were not even used

He touched down 2000 ft down the runway.

what is your source??? do you have an ACARS link that we don;t know about?

Only 5000ft left, thats roughly about 1.3 km.

Please see the video link I posted, and you will see that 5000ft is well within the stopping distance on the 737.

There is much more to this than meets the eye
trust me

[edit on 23/505/1010 by JakiusFogg]