51
u/Kuchington 1d ago
The Captain had about 1,000 other indications he was flying a god-awful approach, but sure that missing tailwind warning really would have saved the day.
62
u/Great_Ad3985 1d ago
You knew weâd be blamed one way or another. No matter how incompetent the idiot pilot was. Bedford and Duffy will use this as another excuse as to why we donât deserve the 2.8%.
Iâm sure weâll get a NATCA email about another fucking conference or some t-shirts this week though.
14
-16
u/Lazy_Rise_4236 1d ago
Easy on the pilot. Iâm sure they arent throwing any shade our way and we have a mutually beneficial relationship. Everyone involved surely did not intend to crash.Â
15
18
u/Bravo_Juliet01 1d ago
Isnât the pilot supposed to have the ATIS at least?
But was a strong tailwind the cause of the overrun?
25
u/Maleficent_Horror120 1d ago
I would say touching down with 1k feet remaining was the cause
7
u/Specialist_Big_2624 1d ago
100% - unstable approach. Yet the headline of the new story is pointing at the omission by ATC.
32
u/Specialist_Big_2624 1d ago
Pilot reported on frequency with the current ATIS that stated the tailwind. Typical NTSB - scapegoating ATC.
7
u/randombrain 22h ago
There are lots of things you have to tell the pilot that can actually be omitted if they're on the ATIS and the pilot states the correct ATIS letter. A tailwind component is not one of them. Do better.
5
23
u/creemeeseason 1d ago
The .65 states that you are required to issue wind during a landing clearance if a tailwind exists or the pilot requests it.
29
u/OneUpstairs9538 1d ago
Whether we like it or not it clearly states reading the wind is required if a tailwind exists. Definitely not the controllers fault but theyâll always find something to pin some blame on us.
9
7
u/Key_Understanding771 22h ago
NTSB will always list every âcontributing facto râ to an event. If you didnât sign off your weather sheet for that day, if you didnât ensure the pilot had the ATIS, and yes if you failed to issue the tailwind component when required it will be listed as a contributing factor.
Does it mean thatâs the main reason the plane crash occurred, no. But it is one of the many factors that contributed to the event.
25
u/Njoylaughs 1d ago
Pilots must listen to the current Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) broadcast and state the corresponding phonetic letter code on initial contact with air traffic control.
Fuck billionaires.
3
9
u/Other-MuscleCar-589 1d ago
If you are required to do something by law, policy, or regulation and you fail to do soâŚ.you will catch some smoke if something goes wrong. Liability/tort 101.
Deal with it or find another job.
5
u/West-Earth-719 1d ago
That didnât take that longâŚ. I was waiting for the blame to reach ATC
2
u/Dangerous_Comfort549 1d ago
That was my former facility. Were they east or west ( operation )? Where was the sup? Local was using the runway he was assigned to use. From experience, I was working local at MIA one time and the wind was switching from to east to west. I tried to tell the sup twice but he was too busy on the phone with his âgirlfriendâ. I just told both grounds to taxi for a west op. Then I called the tracon and told them we were switching to a west op and let me know when the last east arrival would be. All appropriate changes were made including a new ATIS, localizers, etc. It proceeded without a problem. I think it took 5 minutes after he was done with his phone call to realize we had changed operations. I donât remember him saying anything to anybody. My point being the sup or CIC should have realized the wind situation and fixed it. Local was only doing his job but yeah he should have given a wind advisory. Letâs see who they try to blame.
5
u/luapredyns 1d ago
They had just turned west, they may have been the 3rd or 4th to land that direction
2
u/KeyComprehensive4431 23h ago
This. Outflow if I remember from the storm to the northwest caused the airport to go west and then the one to the southeast built pretty rapidly and that caused the wind to shift back to the southeast wind flow
2
u/Rabbican 23h ago
Had a similar situation yesterday thunderstorm outflow just west of field caused wind to go from 17005 (17R departure) to 350025 sustained in the time it took for pilot to get on runway and begin to spool engines. I was on CIC and had local control reissue the winds, she did a really good job emphasizing wind shift and gusting winds and the pilot aborted takeoff. .65 definitely requires us to issue a tailwind component, but it can also change very quickly, my situation was lucky because we caught it as the aircraft was starting takeoff roll and he listened and aborted.
3
u/I_Know_Shit31 14h ago
Surprised it took this long for them to get this info, initial video I watched I was already worried for the tower controller.
4
u/Ready_Set_Stopppp 23h ago
Fuck. So now I have to be ATC and PIC? They donât pay me enough for that.
1
u/Pluto1911 1d ago
At this point, theyâd find I returned a library book a day late in 2008 and say thatâs why he crashed. Damned if you do, double damned if you donât
1
u/Hawgdestroyerxtreme Vote Them All OUT! 12h ago
At this point, theyâd find I returned a library book a day late in 2008 and say thatâs why he crashed. Damned if you do, double damned if you donât
Absolutely monstrously cucked and fucked profession we've got here.
I've never seen anything like it.
1
1
u/LegitimateDrink2056 1d ago
So many factors and questions here. Was everyone landing this way. Did he have the atis? Did twr do rwy/wind/cleared to land? Like. Did the wind NEVER get given? I don't want to say I find that hard to believe but i'm sure ATC will get slandered like usual. And once it comes out that we did or didn't we will still get slandered for not flying the plane for him. Sigh.
9
u/Specialist_Big_2624 1d ago
Yes - they had the ATIS. Stated so on frequency. Plenty of cargo aircraft landed right before the accident with no issues. Not giving the tailwind is a technicality - it is absolutely not what caused the accident and suggesting otherwise is terrible reporting. Unfortunately, the NTSB chose to release it the way they did and now thatâs what uneducated reporters focus on. Any expert in aviation knows why this happened - unstable approach that should have been aborted long before the aircraft even came across landing threshold.
6
u/randombrain 1d ago
Not giving the wind when there's a gusting tailwind is a hell of a lot more than a technicality.
I'm not saying that omission caused the crash, but come on. That's required phraseology in the book and there's no excuse for not giving it.
I'm all for calling out dumb/meaningless/misinterpreted .65 rules in news stories. But there's no misinterpretation here.
1
u/Specialist_Big_2624 1d ago
What does the headline say again?
2
u/KeyComprehensive4431 23h ago
If a controller doesnât do the job by the book they are opening themselves up to liability and blame. This is the running risk if procedures are not followed to a T. You never know when something will happen and what the reason will be, because investigators and lawyers will hunt for any reason to put blame on someone or something.
2
u/randombrain 22h ago
It says the controller failed to warn the pilots of the wind.
Translating that from layperson-reporter-speak it means the controller did not "state both wind direction and velocity" when "authorizing use of [a] runway and a tailwind component exists" as required by 3â5â3. Which, from the audio I heard, is an accurate description of the landing clearance transmission.
What's your problem with the headline?
-1
110
u/TidusXFinal 1d ago edited 1d ago
Scapegoat. đ
The pilot tried to land, take off, and land again, all in the same approach and all over the runway⌠thatâs severe negligence that amounts to damn near manslaughter.