From my limited experience of pilots, this seems entirely unlike the kind of behaviour you'd expect - they're usually conservative when it comes to safety or is that just the projected image to reassure the public?!
Also, more automated, single-pilot/ground operated or pilotless aircraft can’t come soon enough.
Hull loss rates by region of operator per million departures (Jet / Turboprop) 2012-2016: [0]
- 2.21 / 7.38 Africa
- 1.17 / 20.59 CIS
- 0.74 / 3.42 Middle East / North Africa
- 0.53 / 1.55 Latin America / Caribbean
- 0.48 / 1.45 Asia Pacific
- 0.22 / 0.98 North America
- 0.14 / 0.73 Europe
- 0.00 / 8.73 North Asia
India falls below Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan in air safety audit[1]
>The audit — ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme — seeks to identify if countries have effectively and consistently implemented the critical elements of a safety-oversight system.
>India is one of the 15 countries that are below the minimum target rates.
[0] https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-02-22-01.aspx
[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation...
This is the IATA data for hull loss rates for 2017 per million departures:
Asia Pacific - 0.18
CIS - 0.92
Europe - 0.13
Latin America and the Caribbean - 0.41
Middle East and North Africa - 0.00
North America - 0.00
The second link does not mention or link to anything about hull loss, safety issues, aircraft, training but talks about lower ranking due to ATC licensing by government agencies.
GP poster was quite clear that the two pieces of data were from different sources, and the five-year data shows clear trends (though with
The first is the bulk loss stats.
The second is an article discussing India's poor audit results in the ICAO safety audit, per the quote above the link and sourced to it.
I'm not sure how you can claim that the second link doesn't "link to anything about hull loss, safety issues, aircraft, training". It is the result of an independent safety audit by the ICAO, which encompasses licensing, operations, airworthiness, and a number of other categories[0].
Asiana missing a landing in SFO on a perfectly clear day is one example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
Cultures where hierarchy prevails over CRM and recent graduates can recall page 243 of the manual but can't do a visual landing in a perfect day are also dangerous.
About aviation in India, two recent incidents:
Jet Airways 9W-697 where crew apparently "forgot" to pressurize the plane. http://avherald.com/h?article=4bded8e6&opt=0
Air India AI-676 had "inexplicable loss of performance". Crew "forgot" to retract the landing gear: http://avherald.com/h?article=4ac18ec7&opt=0
including Hong Kong?
(Note that HK is considered part of East Asia.)
See here for some news articles on the ATC centre:
When using anecdotal data one just can't make sweeping judgements and conclusions data does not support, that takes discussion into the region of prejudice and bigotry.
This anecdotal one person usually 'an insider' finding one thing wrong or incident in some country and casually conflating it to the whole is seen too often and creates grossly inaccurate stereotypes, when the exact same issue or incident exists everywhere else.
This is not harmless and derails informed discussion. It creates prejudice and in this case stress among travelers when they travel to other countries thinking about 'training, hull loss, safety' based on uninformed discussion not supported by data on the ground. If you are going to travel in a Cessna the standards including pilot training is not comparable to jets whichever country you are in. But no stable functioning country in the world takes passenger and running jets casually as the accident and safety data shows.
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america-russia-and-...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error#Notable_examples
Your second link is exactly the same kind of anecdotal BS you're complaining about - a list compiled by English-speaking editors on a Western-centric website of pilot errors they've personally heard about.
Discussion with actual numbers is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18206505
Asia Pacific - 0.18
CIS - 0.92
Europe - 0.13
Latin America and the Caribbean - 0.41
Middle East and North Africa - 0.00
North America - 0.00
And it ends there. No mention of any problems or concern for 'safety limits' for any region. Infact the IATA data is overall happy with the rates across regions. If you can find anything on that page that points out a problem for a specific region please link to it.
The link includes a comparison with the previous year (2016) - onboard fatalities were ~90% lower and jet hull losses were ~75% lower. You're cherry-picking a very atypical year.
For all we know Africa has the best pilots in the world but the crappiest airframes, or fantastic pilots and awesome airframes but their maintenance is atrocious.
I'm not saying I find that especially plausible, but until these numbers are at the very least adjusted for hull loss rates by region of operator per million departures per age of airframe we're comparing apples to oranges.
That first link tells you little without knowing the denominator for each country. How many flights did they have over that period of time?
And it covers more than 70 years, which is way too long to tell us whether a country or region has a bad safety record today...maybe America had 99% of its crashes in 1945, whereas the other countries on the list had all of theirs last year.
This does not seem like normal behavior from an airline pilot at all. I can see about 10% of private pilots doing something like this. It would probably be someone who has been flying a long time and gotten way too comfortable. Things always work out, so why not this time? The difference with an airline is its incredibly public flying. Even if the pilots disregard everyone’s safety (including their own) they know that they’ll be caught. You do something dumb and it’s going to be on the news, even if it all works out. How many of us can say that about or jobs?
The fact that the crew thought that this was a risk worth taking reflects really poorly on the safety culture of that airline. They thought that flying an airplane that was compromised some unknown amount was worth keeping the schedule going (or maybe people just wouldn’t find out?). That idea got informed somehow.
... by their desire to overwrite the CVR??
Obviously the plane had issues getting off the ground. Probably because it was too heavy. Typically, pilots calculate a speed beyond which they can no longer safely abort the takeoff. Beyond that speed, the plane is basically going to fly or shoot off the runway and crash. That point is decided based on weight, wind, runway length, etc. It's entirely possible mistakes were made with that or with loading the plane. Maybe there was some wind shear as well, which could explain a sudden drop or unexpected challenges getting off the ground.
Usually the co-pilot's job is to call these speeds out and if either of them calls to abort, there is supposed to be no discussion or debate on this and pilots are trained to act right away because every second counts. Obviously that did not happen
So, the pilots were not aware of issues before the abort speed (or they should have aborted) and committed to getting off the ground. I'm sure the in cockpit recordings will be part of the investigation. They sort of succeeded in the sense that they hit some objects but ultimately did not crash and got off the ground. Their climb rate must have been terrible. Usually the gear comes up as soon as you have a positive rate of climb (reduces drag). I imagine they called gear up seconds after leaving the ground before they hit anything even and the gear was likely transitioning.
Wind shear could have caused enough change in airspeed to cause the plane to not climb or even descend a bit. A heavy plane would have used up most of the runway in any case.
They then proceeded with what looks like normal procedure to get to altitude. Presumably they would have almost climbed out and changed frequencies from tower to local traffic controllers after 20-30 seconds or so. Recordings of that are going to be interesting. Presumably the damage to the ILS equipment would not have been noticed right away on the ground and people would have needed some time to figure out what the hell happened and what caused it and what plane hit it. Likewise the damage to the wall would not have been reported right away. By then the plane would have transitioned out of their area.
The question is whether the pilots noticed that they hit any objects and what the communication was with these controllers on this. The plane would have been pitched up (restricts visibility to the ground in front of you) and the damage occurred pretty far behind the pilots. So they may not have seen the obstacles immediately in front of them or heard/felt hitting them. These planes are big and heavy and there's lots of noise and vibrations when a plane takes off.
The damage looks dramatic but you wouldn't be able to see it until after the landing. Obviously the plane was flying and climbing and cruising normally. And they also landed safely. So flight operations seem to not have been directly affected. So, I can see them concluding that they had a stressful takeoff but had gotten in the air successfully. Then some time later they got the news that they hit some obstacles and that there is probably damage to the plane.
The big question is why that took 3 hours. I imagine it involved a lot of communication on the ground.