https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/united-777-plunge-takeoff-hawaii/index.html
any informed conjecture?
any informed conjecture?
Hawaii 777 nose dive
- Thread starter jstert
- Start date
*REPOST*
Avherald reports the crew had over 25,000 hours of flying experience... Not sure I would buy into that theory...
Juan took a look at it.
Nothing definitive heard. Just a lot of conjecture at this point.
Important to note that this was self-reported by the crew, or it would likely never have been discovered.
Important to note that this was self-reported by the crew, or it would likely never have been discovered.
Last edited:
The event started at 2200 ft. so it's highly unlikely the autopilot was on at this time. There was significant weather in the area which may have been a factor. (Hawaiian Airlines had experienced severe turbulence from that same weather.)
this isn't the exact article i read but similar: https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/united-pilots-retrained-after-plane-nose-dived-above-pacific-airline/
Obvi written by journalists who might not fully understand how some things work but yeah.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
If you do not “self report “ stuff like that, the airline will eventually find out anyways.
FDA= flight data analysis.
FDA= flight data analysis.
we also have FOQA. Every flight has the entire disc downloaded and analyzed for exceedances and error.
We debrief the crews, retrain if needed.
But again, the crew knew they had made mistakes. They reported it.
A strong safety culture, one that encourages reporting and honesty, requires the assurance that valid reporting will not result in punishment or persecution.
Contrast this with how the NTSB treated Sully…
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
At many airlines, if you do not report stuff and try and cover it up, your, well, you people can figure it out.
Smart pilots "self-report" because they know the airline will find out anyways.
Flight Data Analysis (FDA), a Predictive Tool for Safety Management System (SMS)
A Flight Data Analysis (FDA) program, also known as Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) or Flight Operation Quality Assurance (FOQA) is designed to enhance Flight Safety by:
Identifying an airline’s operational safety risks
FDA is based on the routine analysis of data recorded during revenue flights. These data are compared against pre-defined envelopes and values, to check whether the aircraft has been flown outside the scope of the standard operating procedures (safety events).
Taking the necessary actions to reduce these risks
When a safety event is highlighted by the program, statistical analysis will assess whether it is isolated or part of a trend. Appropriate action is then taken in order to take corrective actions if needed.
This article briefly describes the recorders evolution, which allowed evolving from a reactive to a predictive hazard identification methodology. Each step of an FDA program will then be detailed and for each step, best practices will be highlighted.
HISTORY OF RECORDERS
During World War II the US National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) installed recorders in fighters, bombers and transport aircraft to collect indicated airspeed and load factor data in order to improve structural design.
Later in the sixties, regulatory authorities mandated the fitting of Flight Data Recorders (FDR) into large commercial aircraft for accident investigation. The first FDRs (fig.1) could only engrave 5 parameters onto a non-reusable metal foil: heading, altitude, airspeed, vertical acceleration and time.
Recorders technology then improved significantly - from analogue to digital on tape (fig.2), then to solid state (fig.3) able to record over 3,000 parameters. In the meantime, Flight Data Monitoring pro-cesses were encouraged and sometime requested by authorities.
Today, while Flight Data Recorders (FDR) or Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDR) are dedicated to accident investigation (fig.4), Flight Data Analysis programs ex-tract data from easily accessible Quick Access Recorders (QAR) or Digital ACMS* Recorders (DAR). QARs are exact copies of the DFDRs while DARs allow to customize the recorded parameters.
*Aircraft Condition Monitoring System
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGIES
The ICAO SMS Manual defines three methodologies for identifying hazards:
Reactive - Through analysis of past incidents or accidents
Hazards are identified through investigation of safety occurrences. Incidents and accidents are potential indicators of systems’ deficiencies and therefore can be used to determine the hazards that were both contributing to the event or are latent.
Proactive - Through analysis of the air-line’s activities
The goal is to identify hazards before they materialize into incidents or accidents and to take the necessary actions to reduce the associated safety risks. A proactive process is based upon the notion that safety events can be minimized by identifying safety risks within the system before it fails, and taking the necessary actions to mitigate such safety risks.
Predictive - Through data gathering in order to identify possible negative future outcomes or events.
The predictive process captures system performance as it happens in normal operations to identify potential future problems. This requires continuous capturing of routine operational data in real time. Predictive pro-cesses are best accomplished by trying to find trouble, not just waiting for it to show up. Therefore, predictive process strongly searches for safety information that may be indicative of emerging safety risks from a variety of sources.
As illustrated in the history paragraph above, FDR logically led to FDA and the reactive process evolved into a predictive process. The main asset of an efficient FDA is to be able to jump directly to the predictive process without passing through the incident or accident reactive process case. In other words, FDA pre-diction process aims at avoiding material and/or human costs by being ahead of any safety precursors before an incident or accident occurs.
FDA: the full Method and its best Practices
Flight Data Recording
Information coming from aircraft sensors, onboard computers and other instruments is recorded into the dedicated FDA recorder (QAR, DAR …). These Data are recorded as binary raw data files which are sequenced in frames and subframes. Each subframe is divided into a number of “words”, each one with a fixed number of bits. A parameter is recorded on one or several bits of one or more words. To save memory space, a parameter value is generally not recorded as such, but converted using a conversion function defined by the aircraft manufacturer.
High ratio of monitored flights
Flight Data Downloading
When the aircraft arrives at the gate, data are either extracted by maintenance staff via optical disc or Personal Computer Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA) card, or automatically via a wireless link (fig.5 & 6).
Smart pilots "self-report" because they know the airline will find out anyways.
Flight Data Analysis (FDA), a Predictive Tool for Safety Management System (SMS)
A Flight Data Analysis (FDA) program, also known as Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) or Flight Operation Quality Assurance (FOQA) is designed to enhance Flight Safety by:
Identifying an airline’s operational safety risks
FDA is based on the routine analysis of data recorded during revenue flights. These data are compared against pre-defined envelopes and values, to check whether the aircraft has been flown outside the scope of the standard operating procedures (safety events).
Taking the necessary actions to reduce these risks
When a safety event is highlighted by the program, statistical analysis will assess whether it is isolated or part of a trend. Appropriate action is then taken in order to take corrective actions if needed.
This article briefly describes the recorders evolution, which allowed evolving from a reactive to a predictive hazard identification methodology. Each step of an FDA program will then be detailed and for each step, best practices will be highlighted.
HISTORY OF RECORDERS
During World War II the US National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) installed recorders in fighters, bombers and transport aircraft to collect indicated airspeed and load factor data in order to improve structural design.
Later in the sixties, regulatory authorities mandated the fitting of Flight Data Recorders (FDR) into large commercial aircraft for accident investigation. The first FDRs (fig.1) could only engrave 5 parameters onto a non-reusable metal foil: heading, altitude, airspeed, vertical acceleration and time.
Recorders technology then improved significantly - from analogue to digital on tape (fig.2), then to solid state (fig.3) able to record over 3,000 parameters. In the meantime, Flight Data Monitoring pro-cesses were encouraged and sometime requested by authorities.
Today, while Flight Data Recorders (FDR) or Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDR) are dedicated to accident investigation (fig.4), Flight Data Analysis programs ex-tract data from easily accessible Quick Access Recorders (QAR) or Digital ACMS* Recorders (DAR). QARs are exact copies of the DFDRs while DARs allow to customize the recorded parameters.
*Aircraft Condition Monitoring System
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGIES
The ICAO SMS Manual defines three methodologies for identifying hazards:
Reactive - Through analysis of past incidents or accidents
Hazards are identified through investigation of safety occurrences. Incidents and accidents are potential indicators of systems’ deficiencies and therefore can be used to determine the hazards that were both contributing to the event or are latent.
Proactive - Through analysis of the air-line’s activities
The goal is to identify hazards before they materialize into incidents or accidents and to take the necessary actions to reduce the associated safety risks. A proactive process is based upon the notion that safety events can be minimized by identifying safety risks within the system before it fails, and taking the necessary actions to mitigate such safety risks.
Predictive - Through data gathering in order to identify possible negative future outcomes or events.
The predictive process captures system performance as it happens in normal operations to identify potential future problems. This requires continuous capturing of routine operational data in real time. Predictive pro-cesses are best accomplished by trying to find trouble, not just waiting for it to show up. Therefore, predictive process strongly searches for safety information that may be indicative of emerging safety risks from a variety of sources.
As illustrated in the history paragraph above, FDR logically led to FDA and the reactive process evolved into a predictive process. The main asset of an efficient FDA is to be able to jump directly to the predictive process without passing through the incident or accident reactive process case. In other words, FDA pre-diction process aims at avoiding material and/or human costs by being ahead of any safety precursors before an incident or accident occurs.
FDA: the full Method and its best Practices
- Flight Data Recording
- Flight Data Downloading
- Flight Data Processing
- Flight Data Analysis
- Safety Risk Management, Communication and Improvement Monitoring
Flight Data Recording
Information coming from aircraft sensors, onboard computers and other instruments is recorded into the dedicated FDA recorder (QAR, DAR …). These Data are recorded as binary raw data files which are sequenced in frames and subframes. Each subframe is divided into a number of “words”, each one with a fixed number of bits. A parameter is recorded on one or several bits of one or more words. To save memory space, a parameter value is generally not recorded as such, but converted using a conversion function defined by the aircraft manufacturer.
High ratio of monitored flights
- Flights should be monitored as much as possible to make the analysis as valuable as possible, 90% should be a minimum.
- Depending of what data is available and what needs to be monitored, the choice of recorded parameters must be carried out carefully.
- These selected parameters should be recorded at the optimum frequen-cy depending on the parameter sen-sitivity (sampling rate).
- A solid maintenance process must be implemented to maintain the re-corders at a high level of efficiency through regular testing and calibrating.
Flight Data Downloading
When the aircraft arrives at the gate, data are either extracted by maintenance staff via optical disc or Personal Computer Memory Card International Association (PCMCIA) card, or automatically via a wireless link (fig.5 & 6).
No doubt at least one of the passengers would have reported it. And with onboard Wi-Fi possibly in real time. Wasn't there some stuff about that 777 fire outside of Denver coming straight from the passengers through their mobile devices?
The rate of descent was well beyond the limits we can select in our equimpent. If we saw an 8600 FPM descent rate, it would be with AP off.
MolaKule
Staff member
Just a theory but it sounds as if they may have encountered a microburst.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
*** meant for Loneryder, not you MNgopher.
Why not?
Just me, I have 25,000 hours, not including my FO.
That said, that’s just a number.
You can have lots of flying time and not be as good as someone with lots less time.
Depends on the pilot but all things being equal, more experience = better pilot.
Major airline WB would have lots of flying time with this airline.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
I do not think weather played a part.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,002
MolaKule
Staff member
You appear to be correct from the analysis above.
I worked on WPR (Weather Prediction Radar) algorithms at Collins to predict wind shear and microbursts always keeping in mind the Aug. 2, 1985, Delta Flight 191 crash.
While Delta 191 was a microburst incident upon landing, we also developed warning algorithms for takeoff (windshear and microbursts) and flight conditions as per the weather radar returns.
Some descriptions: "Unique to MultiScan ThreatTrack is its patented Predictive OverFlight™ Protection, which tracks thunderstorm cells ahead of and below the aircraft, measures growth rate, predicts bow-wave turbulence and indicates potential threats in the aircraft’s flight path. MultiScan ThreatTrack provides flight crews with a more defined picture of potentially disruptive weather threats."
https://www.collinsaerospace.com/wh...ght-deck/surveillance/multiscan-weather-radar
"Accurately depicting the weather is critical to safety and comfort. Our advanced weather radar solutions enhance your situational awareness with advanced weather avoidance technology, so you’re always aware of potential weather threats. With detection ranges of up to 320 nm and available Doppler™ turbulence detection at ranges of up to 50 nm, our MultiScan family of weather radars give you real-time information on the smoothest, most efficient routes around dangerous weather systems."
Search Terms: WXR-2100 and RTA-4100 MultiScan ThreatTrack Radar
Honeywell and Thales have similar systems.
