Sully

[mscard88]

Grandfeathered

There ya go!

 

[denverpilot]

Yes. See any of the gust at touchdown reports that result in ground looping.

I see a pilot error there. Do you?

Plus I asked you to be specific. Let’s see if they said it was a contributing factor or the cause. Words count in accident reports.

“Failure to maintain directional control” is most certainly, pilot error. If not in skill set, in proper weather planning. Or just in poor choice of technology for conditions.

We stopped putting tail wheels on most aircraft for a reason, that has to do with physics and human inability to keep up with said physics. That they willingly chose to go fly in.

Want to try again? I’d like to see your specific example. Especially with a claim that all such reports all make the same conclusion. You haven’t offered up one, let alone a pattern.

And it looks likely the pattern will be correct, reading your non-example anecdote, if that’s all you’ve got out of all of the possible accident scenarios the NTSB has ever investigated.

If all you’ve got is magic gusts and taildraggers, that’s not much of a basis for claiming some conspiratorial bias.

 

[denverpilot]

Y'know, I should submit an unsolicited proposal to equip geese with ADSB; bet the FAA would go for it.

Anything to start a new Safety program. Haha! We’ll strap transponders to their little butts, too.

Would have been funny as hell as a response to the NPRM that brought us ADS-B. Or was there one of those?

 

[Velocity173]

I had forgotten about that one.

While in the army something exploded in a large room we were in. My ears still ring over 35 years later.

One time during funeral detail practice, we were stacking rifles. One idiot, still had a blank chambered and selector on fire. Baaaam! No BFA on the weapon so it was loud and right next to my head. My right ear literally hurt from the ringing. I could've strangled that guy.

 

[SkyHog]

I see a pilot error there. Do you?

Plus I asked you to be specific. Let’s see if they said it was a contributing factor or the cause. Words count in accident reports.

“Failure to maintain directional control” is most certainly, pilot error. If not in skill set, in proper weather planning. Or just in poor choice of technology for conditions.

We stopped putting tail wheels on most aircraft for a reason, that has to do with physics and human inability to keep up with said physics. That they willingly chose to go fly in.

Want to try again? I’d like to see your specific example. Especially with a claim that all such reports all make the same conclusion. You haven’t offered up one, let alone a pattern.

And it looks likely the pattern will be correct, reading your non-example anecdote, if that’s all you’ve got out of all of the possible accident scenarios the NTSB has ever investigated.

If all you’ve got is magic gusts and taildraggers, that’s not much of a basis for claiming some conspiratorial bias.

Look - the point is that when so many say pilot error, clearly there’s a bias. I’m not going to go on a hunt through the NTSB database to prove something you are already admitting (that the NTSB considers most crashes to be pilot error). And - FWIW, if human error was a contributing factor instead of the probable cause, I wouldn’t complain.

But to claim that an errant wind gust is pilot error for failure to plan is ridiculous

 

[SkyHog]

A better way to put it is that by choosing to fly that particular day, the pilot is already somewhat culpable. It’s lazy at best and evil at worst to attribute everything to pilot error

 

[Dave Theisen]

Sorry Nick, but most accidents ARE pilot error, and sadly, we keep doing the same stupid **** over and over without learning.

 

[SkyHog]

Sorry Nick, but most accidents ARE pilot error, and sadly, we keep doing the same stupid **** over and over without learning.

The point is missing the mark. Let’s go for a hypothetical mid air collision. The NTSB is going to find, invariably, that the probable cause was one of the pilot’s failure to see and avoid was the probable cause.

But is that the case? Maybe a more useful organization would ask the next why and wonder “what caused the pilot not to see and avoid.” Certainly the pilot didn’t choose to not avoid something he saw, so why didn’t he see the other plane? Paint job? Sun in the eyes? Distraction?

That is the probable cause that the NTSB should seek instead of burying a pilot for something he may have not had any actual control over.

For that matter, it is not wrong to say that Sully failed to avoid the geese in flight right?

 

[Half Fast]

Sorry Nick, but most accidents ARE pilot error, and sadly, we keep doing the same stupid **** over and over without learning.

I won't argue that point, but "pilot error" doesn't go far enough. Investigations can't stop there. WHY did the pilot make the error he did? Inadequate training? Lack of information before the flight? Inaccurate weather forecast? Insufficient in-flight data or communications?

If we don't probe deeper, we will, as you say, "keep doing the same stupid **** over and over without learning."

How can we reduce the probability of a pilot making a critical error?

 

[denverpilot]

Look - the point is that when so many say pilot error, clearly there’s a bias. I’m not going to go on a hunt through the NTSB database to prove something you are already admitting (that the NTSB considers most crashes to be pilot error). And - FWIW, if human error was a contributing factor instead of the probable cause, I wouldn’t complain.

But to claim that an errant wind gust is pilot error for failure to plan is ridiculous

You see lots of “errant gusts of wind” not associated with larger weather systems, over in Castle Rock? I don’t see many out here on the prairie.

A better way to put it is that by choosing to fly that particular day, the pilot is already somewhat culpable. It’s lazy at best and evil at worst to attribute everything to pilot error

Like I said, your assertion is based in nothing, without examples. If you have a feeling, that must be reality in the modern world.

Show the bias, and show where it’s inaccurate. I said, the bias, if it exists, is probably accurate. Not that a bias exists.

And you’re the one asserting the alleged bias is somehow morally wrong, which I’ve certainly never stated.

You haven’t done enough homework to even show the bias you claim exists across all accident types, not just your magic wind gust types, let alone shown there’s any actual problem with the bias.

It’s easy to debunk your theory, and show your bias, though.

Do you think pilot error is the cause of most aviation accidents? If not, why not? Show your work.

How about car crashes? Are most caused by drivers, or vehicle failures?

I’ve seen no particular evil plan to make pilots look bad in accident reports. Pilots manage to do that all in their own. All one has to do is write down what they did.

There’s nothing evil or lazy about that. Hell, you have to get up from your cup of coffee and go drive to the crash site and then stand at the crash site and write something after looking it over. That’s not lazy. That takes effort.

Having just been at a crash this week, I can tell ya that the investigator was reportedly just fine writing down that the aircraft struck a road sign after a nearly 100% successful off airport landing, and with no damage done to anything but the pilot’s ego and the airplane, no enforcement or other action appears to be forthcoming for said pilot, and no “evil bias” claiming the engine quitting was the pilot’s fault.

I also see about fifty accidents this week on Kathryn’s Report, none of which appears to have any inaccurate “evil and lazy” bias about pilot error in any of the preliminary reports.

I think you’re just mad I caught you spewing utter BS. “By your own admission”, as you say, you’d have to DIG to find even one example. I just found fifty or so without clicking anything than a well known website that publishes such things and the news reports surrounding them.

Want to double down and try and find 50 that match your evil/lazy story? it’s nice fiction, but not quite believable enough for even a short story, I must say. Want to look through this week’s crashes and find even one example of your alleged “evil and lazy” bias that claims the pilot is at fault, which isn’t true?

I hear the NTSB prelim is out on the incident site I stood at on Monday. You could check that one first if you like.

Not even a single solid example, and you’re tossing the “lazy” around? Seriously?

 

[SkyHog]

You see lots of “errant gusts of wind” not associated with larger weather systems, over in Castle Rock? I don’t see many out here on the prairie.



Like I said, your assertion is based in nothing, without examples. If you have a feeling, that must be reality in the modern world.

Show the bias, and show where it’s inaccurate. I said, the bias, if it exists, is probably accurate. Not that a bias exists.

And you’re the one asserting the alleged bias is somehow morally wrong, which I’ve certainly never stated.

You haven’t done enough homework to even show the bias you claim exists across all accident types, not just your magic wind gust types, let alone shown there’s any actual problem with the bias.

It’s easy to debunk your theory, and show your bias, though.

Do you think pilot error is the cause of most aviation accidents? If not, why not? Show your work.

How about car crashes? Are most caused by drivers, or vehicle failures?

I’ve seen no particular evil plan to make pilots look bad in accident reports. Pilots manage to do that all in their own. All one has to do is write down what they did.

There’s nothing evil or lazy about that. Hell, you have to get up from your cup of coffee and go drive to the crash site and then stand at the crash site and write something after looking it over. That’s not lazy. That takes effort.

Having just been at a crash this week, I can tell ya that the investigator was reportedly just fine writing down that the aircraft struck a road sign after a nearly 100% successful off airport landing, and with no damage done to anything but the pilot’s ego and the airplane, no enforcement or other action appears to be forthcoming for said pilot, and no “evil bias” claiming the engine quitting was the pilot’s fault.

I also see about fifty accidents this week on Kathryn’s Report, none of which appears to have any inaccurate “evil and lazy” bias about pilot error in any of the preliminary reports.

I think you’re just mad I caught you spewing utter BS. “By your own admission”, as you say, you’d have to DIG to find even one example. I just found fifty or so without clicking anything than a well known website that publishes such things and the news reports surrounding them.

Want to double down and try and find 50 that match your evil/lazy story? it’s nice fiction, but not quite believable enough for even a short story, I must say. Want to look through this week’s crashes and find even one example of your alleged “evil and lazy” bias that claims the pilot is at fault, which isn’t true?

I hear the NTSB prelim is out on the incident site I stood at on Monday. You could check that one first if you like.

Not even a single solid example, and you’re tossing the “lazy” around? Seriously?

The NTSB database has become almost unusable - that is why I’m not looking for examples. Seriously, this is what I get every time I try to search:

 

[denverpilot]

The point is missing the mark. Let’s go for a hypothetical mid air collision. The NTSB is going to find, invariably, that the probable cause was one of the pilot’s failure to see and avoid was the probable cause.

But is that the case? Maybe a more useful organization would ask the next why and wonder “what caused the pilot not to see and avoid.” Certainly the pilot didn’t choose to not avoid something he saw, so why didn’t he see the other plane? Paint job? Sun in the eyes? Distraction?

That is the probable cause that the NTSB should seek instead of burying a pilot for something he may have not had any actual control over.

For that matter, it is not wrong to say that Sully failed to avoid the geese in flight right?

So the hundreds of man hours that went into the simulations and videos of the twin vs single midair that NTSB did over California where they clearly showed their assertion was true, but the pilot’s only had seconds to see each other, and which also listed the controller in controlled airspace as partially to blame as well, never happened... and the “failure to see and avoid” was “lazy and evil”, even with the simulations posted on YouTube for all to see and review?

They do have to work within the confines of the law the FAA sets. If the law says “see and avoid”, then a midair is almost always going to be a bust of that law for one of the aircraft. Not always. But NTSB isn’t out to hang anyone or do anything evil when they state the obvious.

Or when they spend hundreds of hours recreating the flight path of two aircraft from radar data, and show where the structure of the airframes in question blocked the view of the other aircraft.

It isn’t evil or lazy, it’s just true. An s-turn to look behind the pillar or the copilot of the jet leaning forward to look to the right before the turn, would have probably avoided the entire accident. So would the controller paying closer attention.

It certainly wasn’t the airplanes’ fault the two airframes ran into each other in the sky. And nobody faulted the pilots in any significant way in that accident. We all read the report and had the natural reaction of, “Gosh, I’d better keep a close watch outside in busy airspace if I don’t know where my traffic is... and moved on.

We didn’t jump to some harebrained conclusion that NTSB was evil for investigating it, quite well, complete with simulations of the cockpit parts being in the way, and stating the obvious.

I’m not seeing the evil part here.

 

[denverpilot]

The NTSB database has become almost unusable - that is why I’m not looking for examples. Seriously, this is what I get every time I try to search:

Seriously. Let’s not pretend this is about the NTSB website.

Google is working here to pull up all sorts of NTSB reports, and if there’s a major bias in all accident types, you’d be able to show it in a majority of them.

Or just hit up Kathryn’s. There’s thousands of them there.

Such an “evil and lazy” bias must show up in at least what, 80% of those? There’s like 50 there this month alone.

Let’s see over half of those showing some sort of NTSB bias. Heck, I’ll give it to you if you find 10 there that the assertion the pilot did something wrong, are inaccurate.

 

[SkyHog]

Seriously. Let’s not pretend this is about the NTSB website.

Google is working here to pull up all sorts of NTSB reports, and if there’s a major bias in all accident types, you’d be able to show it in a majority of them.

Or just hit up Kathryn’s. There’s thousands of them there.

Such an “evil and lazy” bias must show up in at least what, 80% of those? There’s like 50 there this month alone.

Let’s see over half of those showing some sort of NTSB bias. Heck, I’ll give it to you if you find 10 there that the assertion the pilot did something wrong, are inaccurate.

I don't know what Kathryn's is, but I just googled it - plain and simple fact is that if the NTSB database is where the problem lies, the NTSB is where I'm going to look for data.

From Katheryn's homepage is the perfect example of what I'm talking about:

Analysis

The student pilot reported that after touchdown, during the roll out, the airplane encountered a dust devil. The pilot was unable to maintain directional control and the airplane subsequently departed the runway surface. The airplane pitched down in the soft sand and the right wing was substantially damaged when it struck the ground. The student pilot reported no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

Probable Cause and Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The student pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing after an encounter with a dust devil.

How in the world is an interaction with a dust devil (which cannot be planned for) something that warrants a pilot error probable cause. How about instead, the NTSB drop their bias and go for the following:

Probable Cause and Findings

The reasonable NTSB determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
An unexpected and sudden interaction with a dust devil. Contributing factors include the pilot's decision to fly into an airport where the temperature facilitated the existence of such an event.

 

[Kritchlow]

Well shucks.... don't think I've responded in this thread... yet... but here does.

Silly is a hero, but not because of anything he did flying the airplane. It's what he did afterwards... making sure everyone was safe before he was concerned about himself.

Truly nothing heroic about the flying.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't know what Kathryn's is, but I just googled it - plain and simple fact is that if the NTSB database is where the problem lies, the NTSB is where I'm going to look for data.

From Katheryn's homepage is the perfect example of what I'm talking about:



How in the world is an interaction with a dust devil (which cannot be planned for) something that warrants a pilot error probable cause. How about instead, the NTSB drop their bias and go for the following:

Probable Cause and Findings

The reasonable NTSB determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
An unexpected and sudden interaction with a dust devil. Contributing factors include the pilot's decision to fly into an airport where the temperature facilitated the existence of such an event.

Are you reading some moral judgment into the NTSB's statement? Because that seems to be the only difference between their statement (and your complaint) and yours.

 

[SkyHog]

Are you reading some moral judgment into the NTSB's statement? Because that seems to be the only difference between their statement and yours.

Its the difference between cause and effect. Was the root cause of the incident that the pilot was a bumbling idiot and should have been able to know that a dust devil was going to hit right where it did, and moreover, that he should have been able to react with the split second effectiveness when it was encountered unexpectedly, or is the root cause the fact that the dust devil existed in the first place?

Its an important distinction between whether pilots are a group of incompetent morons stumbling through the air or a group of people that have been trained but experience situations beyond their control sometimes like everyone else in every other activity in life.

 

[denverpilot]

I don't know what Kathryn's is, but I just googled it - plain and simple fact is that if the NTSB database is where the problem lies, the NTSB is where I'm going to look for data.

From Katheryn's homepage is the perfect example of what I'm talking about:



How in the world is an interaction with a dust devil (which cannot be planned for) something that warrants a pilot error probable cause. How about instead, the NTSB drop their bias and go for the following:

Probable Cause and Findings

The reasonable NTSB determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
An unexpected and sudden interaction with a dust devil. Contributing factors include the pilot's decision to fly into an airport where the temperature facilitated the existence of such an event.

Because weather is not responsible for the successful outcome of the flight. The Pilot In Command is. And your example shows there was an environmental condition which warned of the existence of said weather. Even if subtle.

The NTSB assumes there was either the possibility of a safe outcome, or the pilot wouldn’t be there.

Let’s back up a step, who cares if the NTSB hangs every accident on the pilot, anyway? Let’s pretend they do, even though they don’t. What’s the problem with that? Wouldn’t that over a fairly short time make their reports and findings completely worthless, and actually benefit the pilots anyway?

Kinda like no-fault vehicle accident reporting has completely removed the need for cops and insurance companies to place blame on anyone? Just up everyone’s rates and increase the uninsured motorist pool to sixth highest in the nation, like right here in CO...

It’s works out great not blaming anyone for anything. Why not go the other way and blame everyone for everything? What’s the problem with that, really?

I’m being facetious of course, but then again, so are you in claiming they do it, when they obviously don’t. You still only found 1/50 on that page that met your fictitious view of NTSB so far.

Got more? That’s hardly an “evil and lazy” bias.

 

[Everskyward]

Its the difference between cause and effect. Was the root cause of the incident that the pilot was a bumbling idiot and should have been able to know that a dust devil was going to hit right where it did, and moreover, that he should have been able to react with the split second effectiveness when it was encountered unexpectedly, or is the root cause the fact that the dust devil existed in the first place?

Its an important distinction between whether pilots are a group of incompetent morons stumbling through the air or a group of people that have been trained but experience situations beyond their control sometimes like everyone else in every other activity in life.

The NTSB doesn't say anything about the pilot being a bumbling idiot. You're the one who is reading that into their statement.

 

[SkyHog]

The NTSB doesn't say anything about the pilot being a bumbling idiot. You're the one who is reading that into their statement.

He must a bumbling idiot by the NTSB's logic, because he was at fault. Clearly, a competent pilot would have known that the dust devil was going to hit precisely where it did, and know exactly from which direction the winds would be rotating within it. Otherwise, its not pilot error, right?

 

[Everskyward]

He must a bumbling idiot by the NTSB's logic, because he was at fault. Clearly, a competent pilot would have known that the dust devil was going to hit precisely where it did, and know exactly from which direction the winds would be rotating within it. Otherwise, its not pilot error, right?

They call it "probable cause" not "probable fault" because "fault" has a judgmental aspect to it which you seem to be seeing even though it's not there.

 

[SkyHog]

Because weather is not responsible for the successful outcome of the flight. The Pilot In Command is. And your example shows there was an environmental condition which warned of the existence of said weather. Even if subtle.

The NTSB assumes there was either the possibility of a safe outcome, or the pilot wouldn’t be there.

Let’s back up a step, who cares if the NTSB hangs every accident on the pilot, anyway? Let’s pretend they do, even though they don’t. What’s the problem with that? Wouldn’t that over a fairly short time make their reports and findings completely worthless, and actually benefit the pilots anyway?

Kinda like no-fault vehicle accident reporting has completely removed the need for cops and insurance companies to place blame on anyone? Just up everyone’s rates and increase the uninsured motorist pool to sixth highest in the nation, like right here in CO...

It’s works out great not blaming anyone for anything. Why not go the other way and blame everyone for everything? What’s the problem with that, really?

I’m being facetious of course, but then again, so are you in claiming they do it, when they obviously don’t. You still only found 1/50 on that page that met your fictitious view of NTSB so far.

Got more? That’s hardly an “evil and lazy” bias.

Nate - the weather condition responsible for a dust devil is "temperature over freezing in a location somewhere southwest of North Dakota." Surely you are not saying that to be safe and avoid a pilot error, we shouldn't expect pilots to avoid those situations, right? The possibility of the safe outcome in this instance was "had the completely unavoidable phenomena not occurred, the pilot would not have run off the runway."

To your second point, yes, if people (including pilots) actually read the reports with a small amount of criticality, they'd see them for what I see them as - garbage in the attempt to keep insurance companies happy and the lawsuits flowing so that the FAA rarely has to admit that sometimes crap happens.

I'm all for blaming when blame is determinable. But the NTSB and the FAA have watered it down now so much that when I see pilot error, I wonder "was it really pilot error, or was it just laziness because that is the default position of the NTSB?"

 

[SkyHog]

They call it "probable cause" not "probable fault" because "fault" has a judgmental aspect to it which you seem to be seeing even though it's not there.

i'm not quite sure I understand the difference between the full sentence of "The probable cause of the accident" and the "Probable fault of the accident." The accident was caused by (insert event or person). Therefore, the fault of the accident is the cause.

edited to add - otherwise, the NTSB can be REALLY lazy, and just say - "The actual cause of the accident was the pilot's decision to fly that day" for every accident that occurs.

 

[SkyHog]

Here's some examples where probable cause being hung on the pilot is fair and reasonable:

* A pilot forgets to put down the landing gear and lands gear up
* A pilot does not get a weather briefing and flies into what should have been known icing conditions
* A pilot does not perform a preflight inspection and a nut that should have been tightened down was not and failed, leading to departure of some critical piece of machinery
* A pilot runs out of fuel (not including incidents where an undetected fuel leak occurred)

There's more, but I would not consider unplanned and unforeseen weather phenomenon like gusts and dust devils to be among them.

 

[Everskyward]

i'm not quite sure I understand the difference between the full sentence of "The probable cause of the accident" and the "Probable fault of the accident." The accident was caused by (insert event or person). Therefore, the fault of the accident is the cause.

Look at it this way; if a little kid drops something and breaks it, the cause is them dropping it, but you wouldn't say it was their fault."The student pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing after an encounter with a dust devil." is a statement of fact. Nowhere do they say that the reason this happened was that the student pilot was a bumbling idiot.

 

[SkyHog]

Look at it this way; if a little kid drops something and breaks it, the cause is them dropping it, but you wouldn't say it was their fault."The student pilot's failure to maintain directional control during landing after an encounter with a dust devil." is a statement of fact. Nowhere do they say that the reason this happened was that the student pilot was a bumbling idiot.

And I disagree. The cause is the child's slippery hands, or the heat of the item, or whatever actually caused him to drop it. And if we drop the bumbling idiot part, my point remains unchanged - the statement of fact is that the pilot encountered the dust devil. The failure to maintain control was not part of the cause, it was the effect of the dust devil.

 

[mscard88]

Alright....

 

[SkyHog]

Maybe I can put it this way - going back to a tech background - the root cause of any incident is not the first "why?" question - it is usually several layers deep.

Why did the application stop working? Because the server crashed.
Why did the server crash? Because one of the pagefiles faulted
Why did the pagefile fault? Because of a known error in the database software
Why did the known error exist? Because a solution had not yet been found to the error.

The root cause is that an unsolved known error exists in the database software. Not that the server crashed.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The point is missing the mark. Let’s go for a hypothetical mid air collision. The NTSB is going to find, invariably, that the probable cause was one of the pilot’s failure to see and avoid was the probable cause.

Nice try Nick, but wrong. Here's the PC for a 3 high profile mid-airs:

Hudson River Mid-air:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was (1) the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, which made it difficult for the airplane pilot to see the helicopter until the final seconds before the collision, and (2) the Teterboro Airport local controller's nonpertinent telephone conversation, which distracted him from his air traffic control (ATC) duties, including correcting the airplane pilot's read back of the Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) tower frequency and the timely transfer of communications for the accident airplane to the EWR tower. Contributing to this accident were (1) both pilots' ineffective use of available electronic traffic information to maintain awareness of nearby aircraft, (2) inadequate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures for transfer of communications among ATC facilities near the Hudson River Class B exclusion area, and (3) FAA regulations that did not provide adequate vertical separation for aircraft operating in the Hudson River Class B exclusion area.

2015 San Diego mid-air (Sabreliner vs 172):

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

• The local controller's (LC) failure to properly identify the aircraft in the pattern and to ensure control instructions provided to the intended Cessna on downwind were being performed before turning Eagle1 into its path for landing. Contributing to the LC's actions was his incomplete situational awareness when he took over communications from the LC trainee due to the high workload at the time of the accident. Contributing to the accident were the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, resulting in the inability of the pilots involved to take evasive action in time to avert the collision.

And the F-16 mid-air in the southeast:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

• The approach controller's failure to provide an appropriate resolution to the conflict between the F-16 and the Cessna. Contributing to the accident were the inherent limitations of the see-and-avoid concept, resulting in both pilots' inability to take evasive action in time to avert the collision.

 

[mscard88]

Alright....

View attachment 58010

I tried....

 

[nauga]

The NTSB database has become almost unusable - that is why I’m not looking for examples. Seriously, this is what I get every time I try to search:

It's working fine for me. I'll avoid the obvious pilot error joke.

Nauga,
who has to wonder

 

[Palmpilot]

They call it "probable cause" not "probable fault" because "fault" has a judgmental aspect to it which you seem to be seeing even though it's not there.

You said what I wanted to say, only better than I would have said it!

 

[SkyHog]

You said what I wanted to say, only better than I would have said it!

If that were true then the entire premise of this thread and the quote from Sully himself over the pilot error aspect of the NTSB investigation would have not made sense.

Sully addressed it because there is most definitely a fault component to pilot error

 

[denverpilot]

Maybe I can put it this way - going back to a tech background - the root cause of any incident is not the first "why?" question - it is usually several layers deep.

Why did the application stop working? Because the server crashed.
Why did the server crash? Because one of the pagefiles faulted
Why did the pagefile fault? Because of a known error in the database software
Why did the known error exist? Because a solution had not yet been found to the error.

The root cause is that an unsolved known error exists in the database software. Not that the server crashed.

Because humans wrote the software and humans aren’t logical. The amount of error free software written probably fits in five lines of code on a printed page. Pretty poor analogy.

If that were true then the entire premise of this thread and the quote from Sully himself over the pilot error aspect of the NTSB investigation would have not made sense.

Sully addressed it because there is most definitely a fault component to pilot error

In his audience of the general public who aren’t pilots. And again I ask, so what? The GenPop already thinks all airplanes are falling from the sky and coming for the schoolbus full of children and nuns.

Sully addressed it because he has an ego. NTSB already cleared him long long ago.

Must be because of their evil bias. Hahaha.

The only guy I know personally who can possibly think airplanes are coming for him is the guy driving the Jeep on the county road on Monday, and all he had to do was pull over. LOL. The pilot even destroyed his airplane to avoid scratching the Jeep. Hahaha.

In the case of the dust devil student pilot, I’d first like to remind you that they’ll go after the instructor, not the student. Yes, the student didn’t know what they didn’t know, but it’s no black mark on the student. But the student still was the only pilot on board who could have maintained control of the aircraft, gone around, or otherwise created a successful outcome for the flight.

Secondly, “dust devil” sounds awfully coached. Any witnesses to that one to corroborate that?

Might add that dust devils don’t just form because of temperature or we’d all be surrounded by tornadoes all day long.

Just because these stupid examples of NTSB bias across all accident types that you’re pulling out of your butt are quite far fetched. Dust devils, indeed.

So far from you we have magic wind bothering taildragger pilot’s, and dust devils bothering student pilots, both scenarios out of thousands and thousands of NTSB reports, likely taking place at uncontrolled airports with nobody watching... hmmm...

Ever take Doctor House’s motto and apply it to real life? Everybody lies. Sometimes NTSB just reports the lie they told. Ever consider that possibility?

I’m betting the magic wind and dust devils reside somewhere near the pilot’s feet in both cases. Blew their feet right off of the rudder pedals. LOL.

Made it impossible to make a brain to foot connection in order to maintain directional control. Quite the wind sometimes, right down there at the rudder pedals...

Got anything more than these two lame examples of this giant evil NTSB bias and conspiracy?

You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between culpability, responsibility and cause. NTSB making a clear statement that the pilot is responsible for the outcome of the flight, as per the law set by FAA, is not the same as defining culpability for negligence. And neither are part of any cause statement.

In your case of the student pilot, at least some of the responsibility is going to fall back on the instructor, who had at least equal if not more responsibility for the flight as the student did. NTSB doesn’t care. Not their swim lane. Not unless they found a training deficiency.

Culpability starts to come into play only if the instructor knew about the poor weather conditions, or coached the student to lie about there being a “dust devil” after watching the student bend the airplane, or never taint the student to land in winds, or any of a long list of things their responsibility dictates.

But the student still bent the airplane. Not the “dust devil”. The airplane wasn’t tied down with nobody at the controls. They’re still part of the cause. The airplane didn’t choose to fly itself, nor manipulate its own controls, nor does the dust devil know how to get out of any airplane’s way. Only the PIC can make the airplane land successfully, dust devil, or none.

It’s not like we don’t have videos of pilots successfully landing aircraft in hurricane force crosswinds all over the Internet these days, if a dust devil is above the student’s capability, but a hurricane blow isn’t above another pilot’s capability, seems like the student is likely to become a “cause”. That’s why there’s so much law around instructors having to sign off on every little thing they have a student do.

We all know students aren’t ready for hurricane blows during their solo flights. Nothing about the NTSB saying the student “failed to maintain directional control” is incorrect or any sign of culpability. Just responsibility.