What’s the earliest we might hear more information from investigators or authorities about the recent incident where a Delta airlines plane dumped fuel over a populated area? What is the process for an investigation like this (e.g. steps they have to take, limits on what they can publicly disclose, etc.)
The information I’ve read so far has me very curious about why those pilots made the choices they did. I’m not particularly bothered by the outcome (plane landed safely, nobody in affected areas was hurt), it just doesn’t match with how I’ve heard pilots (Captain Joe, Mentour Aviation on Youtube, other users here) talk about flight operations for these large aircraft.
I assume it would be the NTSB that investigates this? (The same agency that investigates aircraft crashes.) I don’t know what kind of priority they place on investigating commercial aircraft incidents like this.
I do know that smaller aircraft investigations can take a year or more, and they often release reports in stages.
I am on a mailing list where some people have been following a glider crash from a little over a year ago. There was a very preliminary report out a couple of months after the event. About a year later, there was a “fact” report, where they described in extensive detail the factual observations about the aircraft and pilot, but did not state any conclusions about what caused the crash. (The factual observation did seem to be pointing at certain failures though.) As far as I know, we are still waiting for the conclusions report.
So perhaps this post gives a little bit of a hint at how these reports happen.
This LA Times article says the FAA is investigating - presumably to verify whether the pilots followed Delta’s designated procedures, and whether those procedures are sensible.
Out of curiosity, which crash is that? (Perhaps the DuoDiscus T crash, out of Truckee?)
Thanks, Senegoid. I knew crashes take forever, but I was hoping lesser events like this with a successful landing, no injuries or losses, and an abundance of data sources would go considerably faster.
NTSB typically issues a preliminary report within a few weeks & the final report in the 12-18 months timeframe.
The preliminary report is basically factual information they know from the crash scene & ATC recordings. It may tell you the reason for the incident but not the cause of it. This is from a Southwest Airlines flight where the engine & cowling failed, sending parts into the fuselage/passenger compartment killing one passenger.
The final report, issued 19 months later got into things like metallurgical examinations of the engine fan blades.
What you’re referring to was an incident & not an accident; not sure if the same timelines apply. It seems pretty certain it was on the pilots, the questions are did they follow protocol & should that protocol be updated.
Even in the SWA one I referenced above, they noted that the pilot didn’t do everything according to the checklists. However, given everything that was going on - loss of engine, engine fire (at first, or so they thought), sudden depressurization, injuries to passengers - they noted that she did a damn good job of landing it safely. It was akin to saying she didn’t put a turn signal on quite far enough before a making a turn in a car.
No, not that one. But I am aware of the DuoDiscus crash out of Truckee. I knew one of the pilots, who was a true old-timer at it. I know the other co-owner of that glider and many other people who knew both pilots. The consensus I’ve heard is the NTSB will probably never figure it out. The crash caught fire and by the time anyone got to the site and the fire put out, there was nothing left but a pool of molten fiberglas and the remains of the pilots. Ick. One can only hope they died quickly in the crash. I never heard any speculation as to why they couldn’t or didn’t bail out. They would surely have been wearing parachutes.
The crash I referred to happened last year (or was it two years already?) near Avenal.
Though I’m from the other coast, I’d met Sergio, and even helped retrieve him once.
Yes, from what I understand the crash seems likely to remain unexplained. One point is that when a glider suffers structural failure or enters a serious spin, it may not be easy to get clear and use your parachute. In the case of the 2018 Arcus crash in Utah, the problems began at 17,500’ but the second pilot’s parachute was open only a few hundred feet above the ground.
Googling suggests the Avenal accident involved inflight structural failure of an IS-29D Lark.
This is a bit of a hijack of the original topic of this thread, but is possibly of interest to @Xema and possibly to the OP and others too:
I mentioned in Post #2 that NTSB quickly put out a preliminary report of this glider crash, and some time later put out a very detailed factual report. (And, last I heard, we are still waiting for the final conclusions report.)
You can read the full text of these reports (with lots of close-up pictures of the wreckage) if you’re interested in seeing what these kind of reports are like, and how detailed the NTSB analysis is. (They go into such detail, for example, as to how many threads a certain bolt had and how many turns the nut on that bolt had been turned when the glider was assembled.) You might read this to get a notion of how detailed a look they will have at the Kobe Bryant crash too.
The preliminary report is based on observations of the crash site and some interviews with people who might have known something, and if fairly brief. Then they collect all the wreckage and haul it off to a hangar somewhere where they analyze it all in extensive detail. The factual report details their findings of that.