options
Hi this is a question from a lay point of view,
Tim Vasquez's weather analysis seems to show that the flight passed through a smaller portion of the storm came to a clearing which perhaps caused the captain to think they had cleared the storm? when in fact they were just about to enter a larger portion which then caused the pitots to ice up causing the autopilot to kick off. Would the captain have gone to take a rest if he had known the larger part of the storm was yet to come? — and if not, why isn’t there more accurate information in flight at night when they have no sight visuals? Is it true that it is easier to know with greater certainty about storms when flying over land vs sea, because there are more sightings?
The records seem to show that the flight just before and just after chose not to go through this storm, but around. Is there any truth to a report I read at the time, that this flight (in trying to save gas) was cut so close they didn’t have the option, in terms of enough fuel, to go around the storm?
Just wondering.
It seems that if the captain was on deck, by this remark,"This is a stall. Reduce power and nose down!" he might have been able to save the flight, unless there are other factors impacting the situation which aren’t clear. I think from the discussion here there are far too many reasons why the situation might have been confusing to assess in the few minutes they had once the chain of events began. Some might know what to ignore and what to attend — though certainly having the stall warning go again when the needed action was begun certainly was no help in the short time to assess and respond. Clearly changes are needed to avoid many parts of the sequence which caused this — the freezing of the pitots, perhaps better weather analysis or clarity of weather conditions, not ever assuming in training that basic air tools would never be needed because a computer system now takes over those roles, when that system can turn off and require pilots to fill in at any time (or at least, always at a time unexpected), with pilots having both a need to know all that the system is doing for the pilot and to have it spelled out quickly and clearly, as well as an ease and comfort with all these tools and sequences, so life and death decisions can be made with clarity and accuracy in unexpected circumstances on what might otherwise be a routine flight. Since the flight just before and after diverted — was there pressure to go through weather unnecessarily?
If there is any question about conditions, is there truly the free choice option to go around the weather, as did the flights just before and after, rather than through (to save gas or time); — or at the least — there should not be any pressure to make such a safety decision based on gas related issues, if there is any truth to that (?) Was that an impact here to not simply choosing to be safer and go around?
[Should passengers be putting more pressure on airlines regarding weather decisions to give pilots more breathing space and freedom to make needed choices? (or at least not to be pressured to go towards questionable conditions, if this is indeed happening?) Is this an issue?]
At each of these earlier levels, the flight would never have been put in this situation — on the other hand, there are so many factors impacting the pilots’ decisions once the sequence began, it seems these problems simply need attending to and if not this flight, another would have brought them to the fore.
I wanted to mention these less technical observations, simply because as a passenger now, I’ll always wonder if simple logic is being waved or honored, not so much by pilots at the time, but the myriad of technical choices made beforehand — which perhaps is at the heart of much of the concern about this loss.
Please forgive the very lay point of view, but profound interest to this sad incident.