^^^^
Then we don’t get to hear the “Holy shit!” part.

Juan and Captain Steve are saying 767-300’s main gear have tilt sensors, not WoW sensors, and that both have to be activated before the spoilers will automatically deploy provided the pilot has moved a lever before landing.

Based on Fly-Sig’s post above explaining how it works with only one landing gear down on other aircraft, I’m going out on a limb and saying needing both sensors tripped on the 767-300 is going to change.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Based on Fly-Sig’s post above explaining how it works with only one landing gear down on other aircraft, I’m going out on a limb and saying needing both sensors tripped on the 767-300 is going to change.

I would think not.
The 767 has been around for 40 years, and making a significant system change at this point to the aircraft based on one incident would be rash to say the least. This aircrew was flying a very unstabilized approach, way too fast and way too high. They should have performed a go around instead of trying to jam it in especially with storms in the area.

The earlier flights didn't mention it, nor did Juan, but I wonder if wind shear with storms in the area played any role in the highly variable rates of descent for the incident aircraft.

It is in Juan’s video that the controller asked the 3rd and 2nd flights before the accident one how the landing was. Both reported “smooth ride”. It starts about 6 minutes into the video.

Just before that he talks about the cross and tail wind components. He also looks at the decent of the 1st plane before the accident plane and basically says the speed, rate of deceleration, and rate of decent are consistent with a stabilized approach. Then he compares it to the approach of the accident aircraft and the rate of decent exceeds the 1,000fpm maximum at all points of data. Not just a little, but 50-100% over the max.

Now what that means is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Juan and Captain Steve are saying 767-300’s main gear have tilt sensors, not WoW sensors, and that both have to be activated before the spoilers will automatically deploy provided the pilot has moved a lever before landing.

Based on Fly-Sig’s post above explaining how it works with only one landing gear down on other aircraft, I’m going out on a limb and saying needing both sensors tripped on the 767-300 is going to change.

The truck tilt sensor is equivalent to a WoW sensor. The truck angle changes when on the ground, whereas the WoW sensor detects some compression of the strut. Either one will signal that the aircraft is not airborne.

It's getting a bit too into the semantics imho to try to claim there is a practical difference wrt flying the aircraft.

Looking at a 767 training manual online it says that both landing gear must detect on the ground before ground spoilers extend.
1) Both main gear must have hydraulic pressure at the trucks
2) Both main gear trucks must have "no tilt", aka on the ground detected
3) Both thrust levers at idle.
4) If any of those change, the spoilers retract

So when the left main wheels lifted, the spoilers would have retracted.

It is interesting to me that there is no wheel speed required. In glancing at the braking section I didn't see mention of a minimum wheel speed required before braking becomes available.

edited to add: Yes, the ground spoilers must be armed by a switch or lever prior to landing for them to activate. Absent arming them, they don't deploy automatically but the pilot can use the spoiler lever to deploy them manually.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:Then he compares it to the approach of the accident aircraft and the rate of decent exceeds the 1,000fpm maximum at all points of data. Not just a little, but 50-100% over the max.

Now what that means is beyond me.

To maintain the proper glideslope (3 degrees, or whatever), the rate of descent must increase as ground speed increases. Increased ground speed can be caused by flying an approach at too high of an indicated airspeed and/or landing with a tailwind component.

Hopefully the NTSB will release both cockpit indicated airspeed and ground speed during the approach to see which one had more of an effect on the aircraft's unstabilized approach.

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
It'll be interesting to see what the experience level and quals were for the pilot(s).

Not very good. In the US they give out 18 wheeler truck licenses to illegals, but in Puerto Rico they give them commercial pilot licenses. They don't even ask if they plan to land the plane.

“The two pilots of an Amazon cargo jet when it ran off the runway at Miami International Airport have been pictured for the first time.

Joseph Carroll, 55, and Jaime Filipe Silva Molina, 37, were at the helm of the Boeing 767 when it barreled off the tarmac and killed five people on Sunday.

According to the Miami Herald, the two have since been released from hospital after the aircraft crashed while trying to land.

It comes after the five victims were identified as Rolando Aleman, 55, Yoel Rodriguez Naranjo, 53, Julio C Pineda, 75, Carlos Acosta Fajardo, 53, and Javierkys Reyes Quevedo, 47. …”

https://mol.im/a/16114923

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
I’m thinking that it’s not going to be easy to get the hulk of that plane off of the highway.

Sawzall and a winners attitude, I could have that road open in a few hours

According to Juan Brown, the crew attempted a go around, but way too late.

I saw an analyst speculate that H1B visa hires with this contract carrier are pilots that can’t pass muster to be a pilot anywhere else like a legit airline.

So they get guys that have about as much experience flying as me doing heart surgery. I’ve watched some videos of it… I use hyperbole to make a point but it’s not far off.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

In the US they give out 18 wheeler truck licenses to illegals, but in Puerto Rico they give them commercial pilot licenses. They don't even ask if they plan to land the plane.

That is not correct. I spent several years working in Puerto Rico. I instructed, I flew charter / air taxi, etc. The FAA is the same organization in Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland. No difference in rules, regulations, operating procedures, ... it's exactly the same.

Also, note that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, not "illegals." No restrictions on travel between Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland, and if someone who was born in Puerto Rico does establish residency in one of the 50 states, s/he is fully eligible to register and vote, same as any other U.S. citizen.

Ok I just listened to the ATC tape an that pilot sounded Indian.
So who was really on that flight deck???

Matt Walsh has some interesting thoughts. No link, but he’s easy to find on YouTube.

Some information coming to light. . .

“21 Air, operator of plane in Miami crash, had prior safety complaints by former employees”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/m...1-air-safety-record/

From the article -

“The cargo airline hired by Amazon, 21 Air, is controlled by Houston Astros owner Jim Crane through an LLC. The company has faced a string of safety complaints from senior staff who claim they were fired for raising concerns, CBS News has learned from records and interviews.

"Unfortunately, 21 Air has a long established history of safety problems," said Karl Seuring, a pilot with more than 30 years of experience who filed a legal complaint alleging that when he raised safety concerns he was told by a 21 Air manager, "It's not going to change."

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
Ok I just listened to the ATC tape an that pilot sounded Indian.
So who was really on that flight deck???

That’s the First Officer and he’s Colombian. At least that’s where he got his degree. The one in South America, not the one in NYC.

The plane was carrying 32,000 pounds of cargo; mostly contact lenses.

Amazon plane’s black box reveals strange sequence of events just before cargo jet skidded off runway, killing 5

Except:

“Fifteen seconds before the recording ended – as the plane was traveling nearly 140 mph – the brakes on the wheels were released, and the throttles were moved to full take-off power. Four seconds later, the throttles were brought back to idle, and the brakes were reapplied.”

This message has been edited. Last edited by: trapper189,

quote:

Originally posted by FrankMoses:
Matt Walsh has some interesting thoughts. No link, but he’s easy to find on YouTube.

quote:

Originally posted by FrankMoses:
Matt Walsh has some interesting thoughts. No link, but he’s easy to find on YouTube.

Matt Walsh has a lot of bullshit in that video. As far as the allegation about pilots and culture at 21 Air, idk about the accuracy. But the rest shows a lack of knowledge and a good measure of sensationalizing.

Airlines are regularly granted the ability to have one of their own check airmen administer check rides or an observation ride in lieu of an FAA inspector doing it. It isn't nefarious, nor is a degradation of safety. The check airmen undergo lots of additional training and must pass checkrides with the FAA to become qualified. They know the aircraft and the procedures better than an FAA examiner.

Matt knocks the ASAP program, which grants some immunity to pilots who voluntarily report safety issues, under some circumstances. Prior to ASAP, pilots were subjected to severe punishment including loss of license and career for even minor errors. So, obviously, there was no way a pilot would self-report an error. Under ASAP, the airline has a group of pilots, mechanics, and others, plus an FAA representative who review ASAP reports. Many important changes have been made because of these reports, preventing serious accidents. Immunity does not apply under circumstances such as substance abuse, or intentional disregard of regulations or procedures.

The JFK incident was pilot error, and serious. Matt's comments, however, are misleading. There was no requirement or imperative for the crew to return to the gate and take themselves off the trip or to report the error to the company. The filing of an ASAP report was the correct thing to do after landing. They have 24 hours to file it. The FO's comments about being uncertain of the aircraft position on the field and busy with other tasks is important to help mitigate similar occurrences, and reflects a lot of reality. It is a very busy cockpit in that phase of operations. Finally, talking to the FAA is exactly like you talking to the DA. The FAA gathers evidence to prosecute pilots. The correct process is to file the ASAP and talk to the NTSB under immunity. The NTSB investigates for safety, not for prosecution.

quote:

“Fifteen seconds before the recording ended – as the plane was traveling nearly 140 mph – the brakes on the wheels were released, and the throttles were moved to full take-off power. Four seconds later, the throttles were brought back to idle, and the brakes were reapplied.”

I read that as they decided they were too far down the runway and tried (too late) to initiate a go-around, then realized they weren't going to make it and tried again in desperation to stop, or at least minimize the damage.

NTSB Investigative Update - Sept. 9, 2026​​​​​

A summary of select events captured on the CVR during the final few minutes of the recording is provided below. All times are referenced relative to the end of the CVR recording. The times and descriptions are preliminary and subject to change.

06:02
​A pilot called for flaps to be set to 1 degree.​

​04:18
​The flight crew checked in with Miami tower and were cleared to
​land on runway 30.

​02:53
​​A pilot called for flaps to be set to 5 degrees.

​02:37
​The flight crew lowered the landing gear.​

​02:14
​A pilot called for flaps to be set to 15 degrees.​
​
01:42
​A pilot called for flaps t​o be set to 20 degrees, and the other pilot cautioned they were too fast. The other pilot made additional comments regarding the aircraft’s excessive speed throughout the remainder of the recording. There was not a consistent verbal response to the comments about speed.

​01:23
​Sounds consistent with autopilot disconnect.​

01:12
​Electronic “one thousand” callout.

01:04
​Electronic “sink rate sink rate” callout.​

​00:58
​Electronic “five hundred” callout.​

​00:57
​Electronic “sink rate sink rate” callout.

​00:54
​Electronic “one hundred” callout.​
​00:50

​Electronic “minimums” callout.​
​
00:48
​Electronic “too low terrain” callout. Annunciated four times.
​
00:41
​​A pilot called for flaps to be set to 30 degrees.

​00:40
​Electronic “forty” callout.​

​00:39
​Electronic “too low terrain” callout.

​00:36
​Electronic “ten” callout.​
​
00:31
​Sounds similar to the aircraft touching down.
​
00:15
​A pilot called for a go-around.​
​
00:10
​Sounds similar to the aircraft departing the paved surface.

​00:00
​The CVR recording ended.​

A summary of select events captured on the FDR during the final few minutes of the FDR recording is provided below. All times are referenced relative to the end of the FDR recording. Note that the CVR and FDR times have not been precisely synchronized. The times and descriptions are preliminary and subject to change.

00:30
The nose and right main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots.

​00:23
​The brakes were applied at a groundspeed of 146 knots.
​
00:19
​The left main gear touched down at a groundspeed of 134
knots.

​00:15
​Brakes were released at a groundspeed of 120 knots and throttles were increased to a value consistent with go-around thrust.

​00:11
​The throttles were reduced to idle power and the brakes were re-applied. The groundspeed was 117 knots. The throttles remained at idle, and brakes remained applied until the end of the recording.

​00:07
​Recorded lateral, longitudinal, and vertical acceleration values
changed markedly; the FDR data indicated a groundspeed of 96 knots.

​00:00
​The FDR recording ended. The final recorded groundspeed was 65 knots. There was no indication in the recorded data that speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed.​