General Directorate of Civil Aviaiton finish report on AM2431

"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
02/26/2019 at 01:38 • Filed to: None

Mexican authorities completed the investigation into the incident involving a downed Embraer E190 passenger jet. It blames weather conditions, but it also lays a scathing criticism of the crew.

The cockpit was staffed by the Captain, the First Officer, and a trainee pilot. The trainee pilot had zero flight hours on the type, and was only licensed to pilot turboprop aircraft.

Regardless, the trainee took the FO’s chair and command of the aircraft during takeoff. The Captain only retook control of the aircraft five seconds prior impact.

The report also makes references to other omissions, like a power outage preventing a weather alert reaching Durango’s ATC and an understaffed tower. Several aircraft did not recieve the meteorological alert.

As such, AM2431 lifted off and gained an altitude of nine meters before a microburst took it down. The aircraft was written off but no deaths were reported.

DISCUSSION (18)

pip bip - choose Corrour > Spanfeller is a twat
02/26/2019 at 02:32

well in fairness, the trainee pil ot has got to get his/her hours somehow.

i concede starting in a storm is not ideal

Spanfeller is a twat > pip bip - choose Corrour
02/26/2019 at 02:47

A rookie can’t practice out of Mexico City Airport cus it’s a hot and high location. Chances are he was ferried in the E190 to Durango in order to practice there.

But DGAC says it was illegal for him to operate the craft. He only had 64 simulator hours on the craft.

pip bip - choose Corrour > Spanfeller is a twat
02/26/2019 at 02:51

in that case, o ops.

Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!! > pip bip - choose Corrour
02/26/2019 at 02:56

Those places are called simulators. Everyone has a point where they fly the actual plane for the first time, and it is always with passengers. Only after a lot of sim time, though. Sounds like this guy wasn’t at that point yet and shouldn’t have been at the yoke, but I could be wrong.

I have a feeling a lot of info is left off here, but the E190 is an easy plane to hand fly on takeoff with a ton of power even at Max TO weight. It doesn’t do anything weird and responds very well to control inputs. This didn’t happen because the guy had 0 time in type and had only flown turboprops. Every turboprop I’ve flown was a heck of a lot harder to fly than the E190. The key here is that microburst. Some are simply unrecoverable even with perfect technique depending on when and where you go into it. That’s why the rule is there are no takeoffs when there are microbursts in the area. Of course that depends on a working ground based detection system or pilot reports.

At 9m like it says above, I’d guess just about anyone would lose it in a microburst. Those things are nasty. We do a lot of sim training with them and an escape maneuver, even when flown perfectly the plane loses altitude. It really depends on perfect technique and having some altitude already as a buffer.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat
02/26/2019 at 07:36

* there were 85 casualties ( injuries) , not 0.

The issue with the training pilot might not have caused the accident, but it suggests a mu ch larger problem - a lax attitude towards rules and safety.

Spanfeller is a twat > Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!!
02/26/2019 at 08:35

DGAC was quick to say any pilot would’ve crashed under those conditions during their preliminary press release in August, this report only builds on that.

In the end its not OK to let a rookie fly with such adverse conditions... they had zero visibility... even if he was cleared for IFR, the weather should’ve been the disqualifying factor.

But everyone failed, pilots didn’t do proper weather scans nor did the tower warn them of the windshear conditions.

ttyymmnn > Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!!
02/26/2019 at 08:46

Did you see this ? What’s your take on it?

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn
02/26/2019 at 08:58

Wow that does not look like fun!

Not sure I buy the stall explanation that Tyler proposed - doesn’t look like the pilot lowered the nose to reduce AoA. Perhaps wake turbulence or waves from the mountains, perhaps exacerbated by pilot ( really system) induced oscillation?

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW
02/26/2019 at 09:05

I’m not buying the stall story either. Looks like the aircraft just got away from the crew (or the computer) . I would be interested to ask an actual AB pilot. I am not a pilot, never flown a plane or even steered one. But I just have to wonder if, in something that big, having a steering wheel is better than a side stick when it comes to actually flying the plane.

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW
02/26/2019 at 09:25

It’s quite strange from Aeromexico, they’re not known for being wreckless, but it does shine light of potentially dangerous practices across the country.

DGAC recomended that Aeromexico is stricter and it also recomended better staffing levels for ATC operators.

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn
02/26/2019 at 09:37

Swept wing jets are more susceptible to these kinds of oscillations than the planes I’ve flown, so they have systems to counteract the behavior.

I wouldn’t think the stick would matter - pilots usually like sticks- but I don’t really know either.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat
02/26/2019 at 10:05

Yes, they have a good safety record, but this is the sort of thing that you might get away with many times - until you don't.

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW
02/26/2019 at 10:06

In the end they blame the weather, but it was clearly human error by part of the crew and the ATC.

Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!! > ttyymmnn
02/27/2019 at 06:30

There’s a discussion about it on an internal message board for my company. General consensus among our Airbus group is pilot induced oscillations. Most likely one guy over corrected and the other put in an opposite input and the Bus blended their inputs giving you what you see there. They are saying that the CA stick doesn’t override the FO unless an over ride button is pressed on the CA side.

I’m not on my company’s Bus fleet, just the E190 so I can’t give much input beyond that. It’s not the beginning of a stall, you can see the roll spoilers commanding the roll in the video from the cabin, to me that looks like the roll command was held longer than needed which gets you into PIO. Dunno. I have heard stories of the bus responding slowly in wake turbulence and even with full deflection to correct a roll having it feel like it’s not responding. I could see that getting one into a PIO situation.

The one thing I can say with authority is I would have barfed sitting in the back of that. It was no fun for anyone involved.

ttyymmnn > Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!!
02/27/2019 at 08:21

This right here:

Most likely one guy over corrected and the other put in an opposite input and the Bus blended their inputs giving you what you see there.

How can this even be possible? I mean, I know how it’s possible because of the way the Bus is designed. But how can this even be a good idea? I immediately think of Air France 447. The whole concept of one pilot being able to make control inputs that aren’t mirrored in the other stick just seems like AB is trying to be too clever by half. It’s not a fighter, it’s a flying bus. And buses have steering wheels. Maybe I’m just old fashioned.

Thanks for the reply.

Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!! > ttyymmnn
02/27/2019 at 13:03

I don’t disagree with you. I enjoy never flown the Airbus, so I can only relate what I’ve been told. I’d much prefer a side stick to the dumb handle bars on the E190 or a conventional yoke. Keep in mind that there is no feedback on an Airbus stick either so both sticks don’t move in unison. Everything else has the yokes physically tied together.

I have no idea how the A220 works, it also has a side stick, but it is a Bombardier design, so it may work differently with its side stick.

ttyymmnn > Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!!
02/27/2019 at 13:05

But handlebars aside, isn’t it better to get tactile feedback on what is happening, or to know what your crewmate is doing?

Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!! > ttyymmnn
02/27/2019 at 13:20

I think so.