Pile of junk
Actor reenactment of Pilots talking before air inidents, so boring . good for insomnia
shareYou'd think so but I found it fascinating, disturbing, and emotionally draining. It's amazing how these people tried until the end to logically deal with a catastrophic failure.
Felt especially bad for the crew of Aeroperú Flight 603. It felt like they were living an old Twilight Zone episode. The reason for the crash made it even more painful.
Same Rules Apply
You'd think so but I found it fascinating, disturbing, and emotionally draining. It's amazing how these people tried until the end to logically deal with a catastrophic failure.
Felt especially bad for the crew of Aeroperú Flight 603. It felt like they were living an old Twilight Zone episode. The reason for the crash made it even more painful.
Same Rules Apply
I agree that the Aeroperu incident was so saddening. share
I found the Aeroperu Flight very emotional. As a pilot it's drilled into you to always trust your instruments, especially when flying solely IFR. When all instruments fail you're trained to vector in via ATC. They did everything right and had no way of knowing which instruments were supplying valid data.
From what I understand this film was a play first, so there is some artistic license. The Aeroperu flight deck didn't have a woman on it, they were both men. I remember seeing the Aeroperu crash featured on a cable TV program about plane crashes a while back too. They should have mentioned that the altitude information the tower was feeding them was the erroneously info being transmitted by the planes sensors and not a radar ping. A major omission IMHO.
The movie as a whole is OK, could have been much better though, with the flight recorder info they could have at least made the set interactive instead of the crew sitting in a static fixed cockpit set. Difficult for a live play, but wouldn't have been that difficult to do for a film.
if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now - Hank Hill
Probably a budget concern, not being able to make replica cockpits for every plane in the movie. They would have never heard the end of it from plane nuts if every cockpit was identical
"Why the *beep* would I blow up Chick-fil-A? It's *beep* delicious."
I don't think they really cared, not a budget concern.
All they had to do was get some pallets (free) mount the existing set on it, and put some 2X4's off camera and a couple guys to at least shake the set at the right times, tilt it to simulate a bank, nose up, nose down etc.
They didn't even try, the actors didn't bother to do a "Star Trek" lean when appropriate to the "action."
if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now - Hank Hill
I can see how this film would elicit a love it or hate it reaction due to the low budget feel, but like a previous poster I thought it was a very good film that left me almost sickened watching these scenarios where pilots are fighting for their lives and the lives of the passengers, and in almost all cases failing with disastrous results. The final seconds of each flight when they play the sound effects of a plane about to crash was just chilling when you think about what it must have been like for the real people that must have known the end was near. Chilling and heart breaking.
shareI'm an F-16 Crew Chief in the USAF and am almost done with my MAS in Aviation Safety. I have placed tape over pitot static ports many times at the wash rack. In one of my classes I had read about that incident and from that day on it scared the hell out of me to fly. I alway look out the airport window and check those ports if I can before I board now.
Truly sad how a small piece of tape killed 65+ people.
"I knew it. I'm surrounded by *beep*
@matthew83128-1 don't blame you, good luck with your career!
I keep thinking about that accident. Did the maintenance crew back then have a checklist that made them manually check off on paper and initial if they took the darn tape of the ports? They found out making a simple surgical checklist for hospital procedures helped make operations safer.
Would be almost impossible for me to deal with the consequences of making that kind of mindless error.
Same Rules Apply
First of thank you.
Second, I doubt it. In the USAF we use "Technical Orders" which are books that tell us how to work on the aircraft. They’re very specific and give little to no wiggle room on how to do maintenance. If you caught not following that book it’s your ass. I've never worked the civilian side of aircraft maintenance but I understand there manuals are very liberal, more like car manuals. Our books say change part "A" and do it this way, the civilian side would just say change the part and you figure it out.
In USAF maintenance we also use a two signature approach to everything. One of my Airmen will do the job and sign of the "corrected by" signature. Then I come behind him and inspect his work and sign of the "inspected by" signature. This limits things getting missed, sadly it still happens here or there. In most cases the individual signing the inspected by becomes complacent and doesn’t worry about inspecting simple task, for instant removing tape of an aircraft after a wash. I’m sure the civilian side has something like this, but again I’m not 100% sure. In many cases it depends on the airlines and how they want to run their maintenance practices, the FAA rules can also be very liberal, you can thank lobbyist for that.
I find it interesting as a medical professional that you watched this film. I’ve heard that we share a lot of the same training when it comes to communication and the two person concept. The aircrew receive Crew Resource Management (CRM) training (which came from the Sioux City crash that was shown) and the maintainers learn Maintenance Resource Management. Both are teaching how to use the best communication to ensure nothing is missed. However, I don’t know if they were built from medical courses or medical stole from them, either way they work.
"I knew it. I'm surrounded by *beep*
Oh, no, I stay as far away from health profession as possible! Just remember watching news and reading articles about how something so simple could make things as error free as possible. Most likely medicine got the idea from CRM training.
Thanks for the information. The two signature approach sounds like the best method. I agree with you regarding the FAA. Tends to be cheaper to drag out lawsuits than actually implementing things to make flying safer for the public. At least we got the two people in the cockpit at all times rule right.
Same Rules Apply
I keep thinking about the air traffic controller who was obviously looking at the wrong plane and told them a bunch of false information that made them disregard the low terrain warning. The part that gets me is when they asked him "Are you sure" and he said that was their plane.
shareIf you read the previous threads it's explained why the tower had the wrong info too. They were using a transponder among other identifiers, absolute impossibility for ATC to mix them up with another plane.
if it was any good they'd have made an American version by now - Hank Hill