Swift Air B737 crash update.

[Just a civilian pilot]

Juan Browne:

 

[Danno]

Seems like pilot error, as does a few of the high profile crashes as of late. Toronto hard landing with rollover an example

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Seems like pilot error, as does a few of the high profile crashes as of late. Toronto hard landing with rollover an example

All I can say is this, you have to be careful turning stuff off overhead , especially close to the ground.

Airbus used to say we had to switch both packs off when landing on contaminated ( winter ) runway unless using only idle reverse ( you want full reverse if the runway is slippery ).

Risk was, the pack pushbuttons were just above the electrical generators and you had to be VERY careful when switching those two packs offs when coming in for a landing below 1000 feet.

I used to wonder if anyone had ever switched off a generator by accident since they were so close.

 

[fdcg27]

Since Lithuanian prosecutors are involved and have asked that Spanish authorities question the pilot, I guess the Captain, who is a Spanish national convalescing in Spain, it sounds as though criminal charges are contemplated by the Lithuanians.
Since there was no intent to do harm, this would seem inappropriate and contrary to the goal of identifying and then training out crew errors.

 

[goblin]

...
Since there was no intent to do harm, this would seem inappropriate and contrary to the goal of identifying and then training out crew errors.

Is this a joke

What the pilot's intentions were is as relevant as the color of his socks. Of course he didn't want to crash and kill people. The investigation calls for his questioning to determine whether he was at fault or not and to establish what happened.

It's a criminal investigation - there was loss of life and property damage. Those are lead by prosecutors, at least in most parts of Europe. I expect it to be the same here.

 

[Astro14]

Since Lithuanian prosecutors are involved and have asked that Spanish authorities question the pilot, I guess the Captain, who is a Spanish national convalescing in Spain, it sounds as though criminal charges are contemplated by the Lithuanians.
Since there was no intent to do harm, this would seem inappropriate and contrary to the goal of identifying and then training out crew errors.

That is a distinctly American view of things.

In many countries, including France and Italy, the prosecution exists to find fault and assign punishment, regardless of intent. Look at the attempts of French prosecutors to try, and incarcerate, the Continental DC-10 crew that took off just prior to Concorde’s fatal crash. Because a piece fell off their airplane, they were at fault, they deserved criminal prosecution and jail time. Ultimately, it didn’t work but that’s how many countries pursue aviation safety - with criminal penalties.

In South America, pilots have been jailed for years awaiting trial when they were not at fault, and later found not to be at fault.

 

[E365]

As a 737 pilot, those Engine Anti-Ice switches / Right Hydraulic switches getting mixed up are a “those that have, and those that will”, kind of thing. Not uncommon of a mistake at all.

Identical style switches, similar markings, and you’re not looking right at them. It’s literally overhead and you are looking at everything at a severe angle. Crane your neck, in the dark, in turbulence, easy to do.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

If I ever end up ( haven’t decided which aircraft I will switch to….my flying is being replaced by the B737 Max very soon ….I will have to fly the 737 if I want to keep doing it ) flying it, no turning off the engine anti ice on final, or close to the ground after take off.

 

[goblin]

That is a distinctly American view of things.

In many countries, including France and Italy, the prosecution exists to find fault and assign punishment, regardless of intent. Look at the attempts of French prosecutors to try, and incarcerate, the Continental DC-10 crew that took off just prior to Concorde’s fatal crash. Because a piece fell off their airplane, they were at fault, they deserved criminal prosecution and jail time. Ultimately, it didn’t work but that’s how many countries pursue aviation safety - with criminal penalties.

In South America, pilots have been jailed for years awaiting trial when they were not at fault, and later found not to be at fault.

The above doesn't account for any context, and context is everything

In many countries, including France and Italy, the prosecution exists to find fault and assign punishment, regardless of intent

The above ^^^ is an excellent description of why the US prosecution exists, and what its role is

France, Italy, and most European countries (and most non-Anglo-Saxon countries that have been prevalently Christian at some point in history, in general), have their judicial system based on Roman law. To oversimplify it - everything has to fit within a predetermined legal frame. US law is mostly precedent-based. If a prosecutor was not involved in that old horse carriage accident back in 1570-something - chances are investigations went on that way to this day, unless they really needed change.

A prosecutor's involvment in Europe is mandatory when there's loss of life. It is not there to assign punishment regarldess of intent, but to establish whether there is a culprit to take the responsibility for what is considered a criminal event: undue and untimely loss of life. A prosecutor there is just part of the investigation, and usually the one leading it.

This is vastly different from a US prosecutor, who gets involved only when there's an established case with someone to prosecute, and whose losses count as a negative on his or her score card. A French or Italian prosecutor will be called (in French the definition is "saisir le procureur", which literally means "...grab the prosecutor..." It's not like they can say no. And if they find out there was no culprit, it won't count as a shameful failure in their resume.

So if a meteorite kills a person on the ground and it's no one's fault, a prosecutor will still have to get involved in Europe, as opposed to the US. They'll investigate, define that it was no one's fault, and call it a day.

Look at the attempts of French prosecutors to try, and incarcerate, the Continental DC-10 crew that took off just prior to Concorde’s fatal crash. Because a piece fell off their airplane, they were at fault, they deserved criminal prosecution and jail time

I looked at it, and I couldn't find it. The investigations were of Continental itself as a company, and of the mechanic who replaced the wear strip that fell on the ground and punctured the Concorde's fuel tank, and his boss. Which sounds about right. If a truck tire flies out fresh after a wheel change and causes an accident that kills 114 people, one would expect the mechanic who did the job to be investigated.

In South America, pilots have been jailed for years awaiting trial when they were not at fault, and later found not to be at fault.

In South America, heads have been cut by cartels and hung off highway overpasses. They are not exactly the best example to compare to Europe.

that’s how many countries pursue aviation safety - with criminal penalties.

And this is only because none of these countries have civil lawsuits where one can sue their dry cleaner for $54million because they lost a pair of pants, which made the plaintiff lose his faith in Humanity

This is a luxury that the US can afford - do an investigation that doesn't concentrate on the criminal side - simply because there is ample, AMPLE guarantee that if there's a culprit - they'll be ripped in pieces, eaten, chewed, spat out and ripped again.
In Europe, you sue for real damages, and for one symbolical Euro.

So there.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The above doesn't account for any context, and context is everything


The above ^^^ is an excellent description of why the US prosecution exists, and what its role is

France, Italy, and most European countries (and most non-Anglo-Saxon countries that have been prevalently Christian at some point in history, in general), have their judicial system based on Roman law. To oversimplify it - everything has to fit within a predetermined legal frame. US law is mostly precedent-based. If a prosecutor was not involved in that old horse carriage accident back in 1570-something - chances are investigations went on that way to this day, unless they really needed change.

A prosecutor's involvment in Europe is mandatory when there's loss of life. It is not there to assign punishment regarldess of intent, but to establish whether there is a culprit to take the responsibility for what is considered a criminal event: undue and untimely loss of life. A prosecutor there is just part of the investigation, and usually the one leading it.

This is vastly different from a US prosecutor, who gets involved only when there's an established case with someone to prosecute, and whose losses count as a negative on his or her score card. A French or Italian prosecutor will be called (in French the definition is "saisir le procureur", which literally means "...grab the prosecutor..." It's not like they can say no. And if they find out there was no culprit, it won't count as a shameful failure in their resume.

So if a meteorite kills a person on the ground and it's no one's fault, a prosecutor will still have to get involved in Europe, as opposed to the US. They'll investigate, define that it was no one's fault, and call it a day.


I looked at it, and I couldn't find it. The investigations were of Continental itself as a company, and of the mechanic who replaced the wear strip that fell on the ground and punctured the Concorde's fuel tank, and his boss. Which sounds about right. If a truck tire flies out fresh after a wheel change and causes an accident that kills 114 people, one would expect the mechanic who did the job to be investigated.


In South America, heads have been cut by cartels and hung off highway overpasses. They are not exactly the best example to compare to Europe.


And this is only because none of these countries have civil lawsuits where one can sue their dry cleaner for $54million because they lost a pair of pants, which made the plaintiff lose his faith in Humanity

This is a luxury that the US can afford - do an investigation that doesn't concentrate on the criminal side - simply because there is ample, AMPLE guarantee that if there's a culprit - they'll be ripped in pieces, eaten, chewed, spat out and ripped again.
In Europe, you sue for real damages, and for one symbolical Euro.

So there.

They did go after the Continental mechanic.

It was eventually overturned but they went after him.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front...-of-causing-paris-concorde-crash-6543889.html

 

[goblin]

They did go after the Continental mechanic.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front...-of-causing-paris-concorde-crash-6543889.html

Indeed, which I mentioned, in reply to this:

"...Look at the attempts of French prosecutors to try, and incarcerate, the Continental DC-10 crew that took off just prior to Concorde’s fatal crash..."

The above reads like they tried to jail the pilots. Which is false.

If seeking responsibility from a mechanic for a part that they worked on and fell off the plane causing the death of more than a hundred people is not fair game, I don't know what is.
Not every country is Japan, where the mechanic would commit sepuku when the tail they fixed causes the deadliest single-airplane crash in aviation history...

They also indicted engineers on the Concorde side, so it's not like they were looking for a single fall guy.

I don't think it would be any different in the US in similar conditions, it's just that it will come after the technical investigation is complete. If that investigation finds criminal intent or negligence along the way, it will be communicated to judicial along the way, asap. So the end result will be similar.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Indeed, which I mentioned, in reply to this:

"...Look at the attempts of French prosecutors to try, and incarcerate, the Continental DC-10 crew that took off just prior to Concorde’s fatal crash..."

The above reads like they tried to jail the pilots. Which is false.

If seeking responsibility from a mechanic for a part that they worked on and fell off the plane causing the death of more than a hundred people is not fair game, I don't know what is.

They also indicted engineers on the Concorde side, so it's not like they were looking for a single fall guy.

I don't think it would be any different in the US in similar conditions, it's just that it will come after the technical investigation is complete. If that investigation finds criminal intent or negligence along the way, it will be communicated to judicial along the way, asap. So the end result will be similar.

Sorry, you’re right, you did say that.

It’s been awhile since I read that Concorde report but later today I will read it and put my own European prosecutors hat and say who I think should heave been charged if that’s how they do things and like criminally blaming people for their actions.

France…..Air France went of the runway in Toronto ( Airbus A340 ) and crashed off the end of the runway and tried to blame and sue Toronto airport for their own negligence.

Pro tip : when big thunderstorms are extremely close ( and moving in ) to the airport, calculate the landing distance for heavy rain and make sure you request the appropriate runway based on length. Keep the auto pilot, and auto thrust on to the lowest height allowed by the manufacturer. Do not try and prove how good you can manually fly and any Captain who allows it it negligent ( criminally by the standards France applied to the Continental mechanic ) in my books.

Air France landed on the shortest runway , floated, and the pilots took too long selecting reverse thrust and wrote off the aircraft and lucky they didn’t kill anyone.

Captain let the FO take the auto pilot off ( most times it will do a better job than pilots ) and auto thrust which resulted in the plane going above the ILS glide slope and touching down a bit fast IIRC.

Funny, Canada never criminally charged them nor did they sue the Captain for their damages and disruption to the airport.

Instead, Air France sued the airport.


https://www.wingsmagazine.com/air-france-sues-pearson-ottawa-over-2005-crash-1536/

https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/322361

 

[goblin]

The Concorde thing was a tragedy, and there were many to blame.
The metal strip shouldn't have been on the runway, the tanks shouldn't have been so easy to pierce through once the strip was propelled into them, the wheels were likely missing a shim so they were wobbling left and right a few degrees, and some say the pilots should have still been able to handle it and land.
But at the end of the day - there was a piece of junk on the runway which fell off the DC-10. If a piece of metal falls off the truck that precedes you on the highway and totals your wheel, your insurance will try to go after the truck's owners, if they can.

As for lawsuits in property damage - yes. They are rarely fair, but things are too muddy. I avoid taking a position on these, as I rarely have all the elements in hand. Many times they are automatic. And oftentimes justice decisions are counterintuitive.

My point was just that the narrative that aircraft accident investigations in North America are some benevolent thing of wisdom gathering as opposed to a blood-thirsty process in Europe or elsewhere is flawed and false. It's just that in North America the "let's get mean" part of the process is handled at a different level.

And at some level, I feel that, like in recent history, when two consecutive accidents kill hundreds of people because someone somewhere saved a few thousand bucks on a redundant sensor, and got not only complascent, but also disdainful about it (the chief-something-something at Boeing who called external clients who asked questions "idiots" in internal communications), jail time is absolutely needed.

Knowing that the mothership will foot the bill and all will be fine is not a good thing in aviation. Airplanes are the ultimate responsibility, pilots carry a heavy burden, and should be given a fair playing field carrying those responsibilities, not a hanging death sentence. I pity everyone who died in these accidents, but I absolutely shiver for the pilots, doomed, trying to do the right thing in the wrong airplane, like a bus driver who had their steering wheel set to go right when turned left, just worse.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

The Concorde thing was a tragedy, and there were many to blame.
The metal strip shouldn't have been on the runway, the tanks shouldn't have been so easy to pierce through once the strip was propelled into them, the wheels were likely missing a shim so they were wobbling left and right a few degrees, and some say the pilots should have still been able to handle it and land.
But at the end of the day - there was a piece of junk on the runway which fell off the DC-10. If a piece of metal falls off the truck that precedes you on the highway and totals your wheel, your insurance will try to go after the truck's owners, if they can.

As for lawsuits in property damage - yes. They are rarely fair, but things are too muddy. I avoid taking a position on these, as I rarely have all the elements in hand. Many times they are automatic. And oftentimes justice decisions are counterintuitive.

My point was just that the narrative that aircraft accident investigations in North America are some benevolent thing of wisdom gathering as opposed to a blood-thirsty process in Europe or elsewhere is flawed and false. It's just that in North America the "let's get mean" part of the process is handled at a different level.

And at some level, I feel that, like in recent history, when two consecutive accidents kill hundreds of people because someone somewhere saved a few thousand bucks on a redundant sensor, and got not only complascent, but also disdainful about it (the chief-something-something at Boeing who called external clients who asked questions "idiots" in internal communications), jail time is absolutely needed.

Knowing that the mothership will foot the bill and all will be fine is not a good thing in aviation. Airplanes are the ultimate responsibility, pilots carry a heavy burden, and should be given a fair playing field carrying those responsibilities, not a hanging death sentence. I pity everyone who died in these accidents, but I absolutely shiver for the pilots, doomed, trying to do the right thing in the wrong airplane, like a bus driver who had their steering wheel set to go right when turned left, just worse.

Personally, lots of other people should have also been criminally charged, not just the American ( Continental ) mechanic.

Air France dispatch knew the plane was overweight and out of C of G.

Interesting analysis from a very well respected former BA Concorde Captain.

If taking off intentionally overweight, out of C of G limits , with an unplanned tailwind and the landing gear causing directional control problems because it was not maintained properly, isn’t criminal, I don’t know what is.

Not something you would expect from a major airline, or airline pilot.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

https://sia.lrv.lt/public/canonical...20 Boeing 737-400SF EC-MFE Interim Report.pdf


On Mar 31st 2025 Lithuania's AIB released their preliminary report reporting the first officer was pilot flying, post accident examination of the wreckage revealed the flaps in the retracted position and summarized the approach:

At 03:01:42 hrs the crew started the approach briefing. The crew discussed the relevant charts and set frequencies and courses.

At 03:06:25 hrs the crew completed the descent checklist, omitting the landing data step. Then the crew discussed to expect icing, moderate turbulence and clouds below FL 220.

At 03:08:50 hrs Warszawa area control centre (ACC) indicated the frequency of Vilnius ACC 133.305 MHz.

At 03:09:09 hrs the captain tried to contact Vilnius ACC reporting to descend to FL 290, but got no response.

At 03:09:25 hrs the captain made further explanation of Vertical Navigation (VNAV) descent with anti-ice on.

At 03:09:56 hrs the captain tried to contact Vilnius ACC again. After a discussion with the co-pilot about the correct frequency, the captain changed the frequency and radioed Vilnius ACC at 03:10:11 hrs. Vilnius ACC responded and gave the clearance to descent to FL 100.

At 03:12:43 hrs the crew discussed again about anti-ice on in accordance with weather conditions.

At 03:17:27 hrs Vilnius ACC instructed the crew to change frequency to Vilnius Aerodrome Control Centre (VACC) Vilnius approach air traffic controller on 120.705 MHz. During this radio transmission, at 03:17:30 hrs, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) recorded an audible double click. At 03:17:32 hrs the captain read back the radio frequency correctly. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data shows that at 03:17:34 hrs the HYD SYS B ELEC pump and HYD SYS B EDP both went into the OFF position. At 03:17:35 hrs the HYD SYS ENG R indicated low pressure (Appendix B). The autopilot, which was engaged in CMD B, disconnected and an aural alert was triggered. A master caution light was also triggered but was immediately cancelled by the crew. Two additional attempts were made to re-engage the autopilot B, however they were both unsuccessful. The co-pilot flew the aircraft from this point forward with autopilot disengaged and auto-thrust engaged.

According to the CVR the captain made two attempts to contact VACC Vilnius approach air traffic controller. The captain switched to the previous frequency of Vilnius ACC and at 03:18:19 hrs asked to confirm 118.705 MHz as frequency of VACC Vilnius approach air traffic controller. Vilnius ACC corrected the frequency to 120.705 MHz.

At 03:18:47 hrs the captain established radio contact to VACC Vilnius approach air traffic controller.

At 03:20:01 hrs the captain recognized that the autopilot was disconnected at about the same time as he attempted to engage engine anti-ice switches. The point was not further discussed by the crew. FDR data show that the anti-ice switches were not engaged at this time.

At 03.22:42 hrs the crew accomplished the approach checklist, but no the landing checklist was accomplished.

At 03:22:57 hrs the co-pilot asked if anti-ice is on. The captain confirmed.

At 03:23:44 hrs the crew discussed measures to reduce speed, the captain deployed the speed brakes and advised the co-pilot to raise the nose.

At 03:24:29 hrs the captain stated for flaps 5. The CVR recorder an audible several clicks, which were most likely coming from a flap handle movement. FDR data show that the actual flap position remained at flaps zero (flaps up).

At 03:26:15 hrs the aircraft reached the final approach phase (Figure 2). At the same time the co-pilot asked the captain for gear down and flaps 15. The captain stated that there were still very fast and that the co-pilot has to reduce speed first.

At 03:26:58 hrs VACC Vilnius approach air traffic controller contacted the crew and stated for “Postman one eight delta, four miles from touchdown, contact tower, one one eight two zero five”. According to the CVR the captain responded to the radio call for change to tower frequency “one one eight zero five, postman one eight delta”, but was transmitted “zero five, postman one eight delta”. The crew was not on VACC Vilnius approach air traffic controller or VACC Vilnius aerodrome air traffic controller frequency from the point on (Figure 2). The captain made two more attempts to contact VACC Vilnius aerodrome air traffic controller on the incorrect frequency.

At 03:27:42 hrs the captain stated that the runway is in sight and the co-pilot should further reduce speed (Figure 2). This happened simultaneously with the captain recognizing that he selected the wrong frequency.

At 03:27:56 hrs the co-pilot recognized that flaps are retracted. Immediately after, the stick shaker activated and a “Sink Rate, Pull Up” warning was triggered by the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS). At 03:28:02 hrs the crew called for go around. The auto throttle was set to Go-Around (GA) mode and the engines accelerated to above 90% N1 at impact.

At 03:28:07 hrs a “too low – terrain” warning was triggered by the EGPWS. One second later the aircraft impacted into the ground.

Runway Elevation is 647 feet MSL, the last ADS-B position suggesting a flight level 007 thus indicates at 1020 hPa a height of 253 feet when the aircraft on a 3 degree glidepath should be at a height of 336 feet. Elevation at the point of first impact is 675 feet MSL. The ADS-B data suggest an average rate of descent of 972fpm at an average speed of 149 knots over ground between 03:27:29Z and 03:28:06Z.

Related NOTAM:
A5300/24 NOTAMN
Q) EYVL/QFALC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5438N02517E005
A) EYVI B) 2411250354 C) 2411250500 EST
E) AERODROME CLOSED DUE TO AN EMERGENCY

Metars:
EYVI 250520Z 17016KT 9999 OVC008 01/M00 Q1020 NOSIG=
COR EYVI 250450Z 18016KT 9999 OVC008 01/M00 Q1020 NOSIG=
EYVI 250420Z 18016KT 9999 OVC008 01/M00 Q1020 NOSIG=
EYVI 250350Z 18015KT 9999 OVC008 01/M00 Q1020 TEMPO OVC005=
EYVI 250320Z 18017KT 9999 OVC007 01/M01 Q1020 TEMPO OVC005=
COR EYVI 250250Z 17017KT 9999 OVC008 01/M01 Q1020 TEMPO OVC005=
EYVI 250220Z 18016KT 9999 OVC009 01/M01 Q1020 TEMPO OVC005=
EYVI 250150Z 17016KT 9999 OVC010 01/M01 Q1020 NOSIG=
EYVI 250120Z 18016KT 9999 OVC011 01/M01 Q1020 NOSIG=
EYVI 250050Z 17016KT 9999 OVC012 01/M01 Q1020 NOSIG=
EYVI 250020Z 17015KT 9999 -SNRA OVC013 01/M01 Q1021 NOSIG=
EYVI 242350Z 17016KT 9999 -SNRA BKN014 BKN041 01/M02 Q1021 NOSIG=
EYVI 242320Z 17016KT 9999 BKN016 01/M02 Q1021 NOSIG=
EYVI 242250Z 17014KT 9999 OVC021 00/M02 Q1021 NOSIG=

 

[Just a civilian pilot]