Don’t kill the messenger. But pilot error will continue to occur as a result of substandard training and associated lack of understanding. Not only the lack of understanding of the equipment, but also basic aerodynamic flight skills. This is something airlines do not teach, and pilots, without experience, may not have. I believe that pilot error and lack of understanding is why AI 171 crashed, why Endeavor crashed and why Jeju crashed. Air India crashed with what appeared to be a plane with problems, because they did not understand performance and stalled their aircraft. Endeavor crashed a perfectly good airplane because they lacked knowledge of how to arrest the descent rate, and refused to go around. Jeju crashed because nobody was thinking that it would be a better idea to land on the runway in front of them after a bird strike, instead taking if flying again. All three of these crashes have a commonality, and that is a result of lack of understanding.
Pilot’s never stop flying their plane. And as Bob Hoover said, “Fly the Aircraft all the way into the crash.”
We will learn what mechanically happened to the AI 171 aircraft, if the authorities disclose the information. However, what we know without that data, is that no matter what happened to that aircraft, these pilots did not understand performance. It appears they simply continued to pull back on the controls in effort to sustain flight. They maintained the same angle of attack as departure, even as the plane began to fall, all the way to the explosion.
Learning Before the Reports are In
Yes, it is possible to learn from the video. The world watched a video from the right side of the aircraft that lost sight below the building. But the CCTV video provides a much better view of the aircraft. When you watch the video, pay attention to the nose of the aircraft. It remains up the entire time. Below are photos captured from takeoff to crash. If the RAT was out, and powering the electrical system then there was no electric trim. Any pilot who has done stall training will know the force necessary to hold the nose up without enough power to sustain flight. Keep pulling and the plane stalls. When stalling, simply adding power while retaining a nose up position will create an accelerated stall. Survival depends upon the angle of attack. Without enough power there is only one thing to do. Lower the nose. This is a pilot learning moment.
Despite the problem that created the RAT to extend. Gear up or not. Flaps up or not. Engines or not. When a plane doesn’t have “enough” power to sustain lift while pitching up, the only option is to pitch the nose over to increase airspeed. Change the angle of attack. Gliders fly without engines. Jets glide without engine power.
These pilots continued to pull the controls back in their effort to sustain flight, which was simply not possible without enough thrust. The captain even called out that he did not have thrust. We know they had power or they would not have flown forward as they did. If the plane is not climbing and speed is decreasing there is only one option.
They should have lowered the nose, accelerated and attempt level flight, once they had speed they could climb. Gear up would have helped. Not pull the nose up trying to climb without enough thrust. Even Bob Hoover reminds us that pilots always fly the plane to the crash. If they could not get enough lift, flying into the crash would have been far better than dropping and exploding. These pilots did not have the understanding of the correct course of action with power loss or reduced power. I can say this because, if they had known what to do, they would have lowered the nose. They did not.
Furthermore, AF447 stalled and that plane fell like a maple leaf into the ocean. Was this any different? Albeit a shorter journey.
I was discussing this event and my theory with an airline check airman, telling him that the pilots needed to push the nose over and gain airspeed. He agreed and said, “That is exactly what Carl did years ago at Northwest.”
Carl Simmons: The Pilot who knew how to fly.
Only because Carl Simmons passed away this year was I able to find his story. However ironic, a car hit him exactly 36 years later, on the exact date of his losing two engines on a Boeing 727 during departure in 1985. Everyone said, this was an unsurvivable event. Everyone was wrong. There were no procedures. He simply understood how planes flew. He understood aerodynamics.
Without enough thrust to sustain a climb on a single engine, he pitched the nose forward and accelerated toward the ground. He intentionally brought up the flaps to improve acceleration. He sustained level flight. Then with airspeed on his side, he flew above the treetops until he was able to climb. Had he done what the Air India 171 pilots did, pull back on the controls, he would have stalled and killed everyone on board. This is the power of experience. This is the importance of understanding aerodynamics. You can read the article written about this Carl Simmons and his event HERE
Pilots are heroes every day. Yet they need the tools to operate the plane when it breaks. No pilot should ever pull the nose up when they don’t have power to sustain lift. Nose high with no thrust was a total lack of understanding. No pilot should ever accept 1100 foot per minute descent into the runway without action, such as Endeavor did. Not even to add power to go around. Instead they crashed a perfectly good airplane because they did not know what to do. Even Jeju failed to understand there was a runway in front of them and after a bird strike they should have landed, not gone around. Another byproduct of poor training. This is about training. Pilots are not being given tools to do the job.
If you have not read the research yet, I would get Normalization of Deviance a Threat to Aviation Safety. Also available in audible. You decided what needs to be done.
“Unfortunately today’s training environment is too centered (in my opinion) on automation and discourages us from thinking like aviators” Anonymous pilot
I’m Not Blaming the Pilot!
The finger is pointed directly at substandard training and airlines placing profit before safety. If you give your kid who doesn’t know how to drive the car keys and tell them to have fun. Whose fault is it when they crash? Where is the FAA you ask? That’s a good question. I believe they, too, lack as much understanding in today’s world of aviation as the flight crews. Or they are profiting from looking the other way. Which is worse?
5 Comments
Thank you Karlene.
We’re Forgetting the Basics of Flight
I’ve trained many pilots over the past few years on both Airbus and Boeing aircraft, and one thing keeps coming up—this is recurrent, and it’s concerning.
We are forgetting the fundamentals of flight.
Airlines and regulators must act before this trend leads to more tragic outcomes.
American Airlines took a proactive step by introducing the Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program, led by Capt. Van Der Burgh. This initiative recognized a critical truth: we’ve become too reliant on automation.
The industry continues to push for more highly automated aircraft, but in doing so, we risk creating a generation of pilots who no longer truly understand why airplanes fly. This knowledge gap is dangerous—and growing.
If we don’t address it, we will see a snowball effect of accidents caused not by technology failure, but by a loss of basic airmanship.
It’s time to return to the roots of flying.
Carlos Bolivar
AI 171 was only 400ft above ground. If power was lost on both engines then how does the pilot recover? He would have crashed with nose down or crashed with a stall the result would have been same. AF447 at 35000ft was stalled by the pilot with full thrust and kept into stall. It’s true Jeju pilot had runway in front and just had to land ahead even if a little short. But you are wrong about AI 171.
Good Question Vilas. The plane was moving forward, with nose up. Therefore it was physically impossible for both engines to have failed.
They needed speed. They traded pitch for speed. You have to put the nose down toward the ground.You have to accelerate. Then you level. If you still don’t have enough power, you fly a controlled crash level… forward. You always fly the plane. You never stop flying. You fly it to the ground.
Karlene, with both engines having failed, the plane would have still climbed a bit, due to sheer momentum.
It takes time to digest the realization of having lost all electrics and then all engines. And don’t forget the startle factor. And you expect them to have “lowered the nose, accelerated and attempt level flight, once they had speed they could climb’! Is that possible with both engines out?
The operator’s training may not be the best, but tell me, which airline on earth trains pilots to act with a major electric malfunction at 50 feet AAL, followed by a dual engine failure?
Glider pilots do train for similar situations, like a cable-break just after getting airborne, and then flying straight ahead. Not B787 pilots!
Thank you for your comment, and thoughtful response. Yes, I wrote on linkedIn about startle factor. A friend is teaching upset recovery and they talk about the startle effect. The manner in which that plan accelerated forward with a pitch up attitude, and the fact the pilot did not call the universal statement “Engine failure” or “Dual engine failure” leads me to believe they just did not have thrust. More so, if they did lose their engines, the worst thing you can do is hold the aircraft nose up. You have to push it forward and have a controlled flight into a landing someplace. Try to avoid buildings, land on a road… anything. But, you can’t allow these big rocks to drop. Sadly, all commercial airline pilots today, if they did not have a history of flying old planes and learning performance, do not get that training. This is what I’m trying to do… force the industry to improve training. Give the pilots what they need so they can survive when the planes break. They will break. We need to give the pilots the tools. Thanks again for your comment.