They were flying through/around inclement weather when it happened, and that's what their last audio exchanges were about. No info yet on other factors that could have contributed.
And they typically elevate stories based on reader interest, so the fact that it's so thoroughly minimized (to the right, in red) shows how little anyone cares relative to the other stories.
It's the first cargo plane crash with fatalities in 6 years. [0] Since this type of aircraft also carries passengers it's big news.
Commercial air travel in the US has a pretty enviable track record. As far as I am aware, outside of the fluke accident that killed one passenger last year when a piece of the engine went through the fuselage, the last fatalities were in 2009, Colgan Air Flight 3407. [1]
Asiana Air 214 had 3 deaths in 2013. Pilot botched the landing and struck the tail on a seawall at San Francisco. Back portion of fuselage was ripped off, ejecting a handful of passengers and crew.
For US-based carriers, you are correct. Ignoring international carriers operating in the US strikes me as slightly disingenuous (though lots of people do it), as the international carriers should be subject to most of the same regulations as US carriers (when operating in the US). And as a consumer, I'm as likely to be on BA, KLM, or somebody else as I am United when flying internationally.
It's harder to enforce regulation at the same level as for a domestic carrier. How easy is it to track the quality of pilot training, or aircraft maintenance parts half a world away?
It's harder to enforce regulation at the same level as for a domestic carrier. How easy is it to track the quality of pilot training, or aircraft maintenance parts half a world away?
Not that much harder, you still need FAA approval to fly in the United States. For instance, Air India has run afoul of the FAA in the past and most Indonesian airlines have been banned from EU airspace at one time or another. Currently VietJet (I think) is working to get FAA approval to fly in the US.
The problem is that it's inappropriate to say "your lack of safety culture is a problem" before there are deaths. Korean Air had to hire submit to a bunch of training by Delta Airlines after a series of wrecks. It's not a particularly uncommon opinion to look at the culture of deference and respect for elders/seniors you see in East Asia as being detrimental to safety. I agree. The Asiana wreck showed this (there were three people in the cockpit, two of whom called for a go around, the other one ignored the calls). KLM showed what happens when you're unwilling to question a senior officer back in the 70s in Tenerife.
In theory the regulation is the same. By "enforcing" I meant making sure the practice matches the theory.
I remember finding out that if a pilot has a "conflict of personality" with another pilot they can just check a box on a form and they never end up on the same crew. This was after one difficult pilot bullied his young co-pilot until the latter made an error (failed to read the altitude) that cost the lives of all people on the plane.
The rule likely applies to every airline flying in the US. But actually enforcing it is a lot harder to enforce half way around the globe or somewhere where that safety culture you mention is different. There's a chance the punitive measures are also applied differently, where in the US someone might go to prison for failing to properly apply regulation.
It's not though. Canada, for instance, has far more lax work time limits on its pilots. Guess who else has had problems at SFO? If you guessed Air Canada you'd be correct. There are plenty of regulations that are different for foreign carriers operating on American soil (it probably comes down to mutually agreed ICAO rules).
To be fair, plane crashes are themselves quite rare. The person you're responding to doesn't have any evidence for those specific failures, but there must have been at least one instance of catastrophic failure or gross pilot error.
You're right they shouldn't be speculating based on nothing, it's just that multiple catastrophic failures aren't that outlandish if we know there's probably been at least one (i.e. the plane crashed).
That is typically why planes crash. If one thing goes wrong, it can probably be handled. If everything goes wrong, the results can be disastrous.
I am not sure what happened in this case. The plane was losing 7000 feet per minute at the end. I am not sure if a 767 in a stall loses altitude that quickly, but if weight shifted aft then the wings certainly wouldn't be generating lift. But would it not self-correct after a while? I have no idea.
