Hundreds of passengers' lives at stake


ricohflex

Senior Member
Would you like to be on this flight?

"ANA said Thursday that the co-pilot is believed to have mistakenly hit the rudder controls instead of the door lock to allow the pilot back in the cockpit."

Cockpit error sent 737 into Pacific nose dive.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/plane-plunges-6234-feet-after-pilot-error/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/29/501364/main20113357.shtml

See the comments by OTHER PILOTS in a forum
http://atwonline.com/operations-maintenance/news/two-injured-ana-737-700-roll-incident-0908

The Yomiuri Shimbun article
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110929005502.htm
 

Last edited:
it was an ACCIDENT as said. nowhere in the article does it state "he did not have any ideas what the controls were"

don't misquote. you're only gonna make people panic for no reason
 

It's Maverick and Goose reliving their golden days. Too bad they have passengers now.
 

Last edited:
Photographers who don't read user manuals must have pressed the wrong button on their camera, at a crucial moment too.

i don't get the analogy ...
 

bad one, like apple and orange. like someone who disassemble bomb comparing to someone who disassemble durian.

yea... so u shld throw an

images
 

Just occurred to me that Silk Air 185 that crashed at Palembang was also a Boeing 737.
It suddenly went out of control and the plane dived.
 

it was an ACCIDENT as said. nowhere in the article does it state "he did not have any ideas what the controls were"

don't misquote. you're only gonna make people panic for no reason
In aviation nomenclature, the term "accident" as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is meant specifically for occurrences whereby a person is fatally or seriously injured on or by an aircraft, and if the airframe structure was compromised severely enough to affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.

As such, it would only be referred to as a "serious incident" officially in such a situation at best. Anyway, it's uncommon for such mistakes to occur. There have been multiple incidents of the cockpit crew switching off the fuel or hydraulic pumps instead of the exterior lighting while climbing to cruising altitude. Even when an aircraft is being maintained, repair or overhaul, I had personally encountered a case where an engineer instead of cycling the undercarriage by raising the landing gear lever decided to raise the flap lever while personnel was working on it.

Ultimately, it all boils down to complacency. Complacency such as letting your kids into the cockpit and ultimately killing 75 people.
 

Last edited:
maybe he was trying to dump the toilet bowl's contents onto his Captain in the toilet .............
 

Beginning to have my doubts about the Japanese official explanation.

Is this the first time a pilot went to the toilet during a flight? This cannot be. Pilots must have gone to the toilet many times, in the flight experience of the co-pilot. So is it possible that the co-pilot mistook the control knob? Even if so, the autopilot was on. So why the plane went belly up and plunged 6,000+ feet? Maybe there is much more to this. Is it really attributable to what the airline claims the co-pilot did?

It reminds me of 2 other cases
1) The August 1992 sinking of Royal Pacific cruise ship after a collision with a fishing trawler. The stricken Terfu 51 was sailing slowly and all the resources - ships, patrol boats, helicopters, recce planes, Singapore had cannot locate Terfu 51 within the narrow Malacca Straits? Really?

2) Mas Selamat's "escape". The version was so fanciful that it stretches the imagination.
 

Last edited:
Get back to the drawing board and work on better interfaces.
 

A lot of things happen in cockpits than just toilet breaks....

As seen by the recent photographs that surfaced about a Cathay Pacific pilot and air stewardess.

Mile high club.
 

Back
Top