Aeromexico fires pilots involved in crash

Story:

We all remember the Aeromexico Crash of July 31st, while there were no fatalities, 3 pilots didn’t get off so easily…

Investigators said earlier that a trainee pilot was improperly seated in the co-pilot’s seat when the plane took off. They said the plane’s commanding officer took over controls from the trainee just before the crash.

The airline said in a letter to employees published Thursday that the pilots’ actions were “in direct violation of our company’s policies, manuals and procedures.”

Link to Story:
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/mexican-airline-fires-pilots-involved-durango-crash-57654324

What are your thoughts? Was it pilot error, or adverse weather conditions (microburst)? Comment Below.

8 Likes

Idk, I heard this story, but didn’t read the detail about crash.

1 Like

Firing the pilots is the right decision in my mind… It’s better PR for AeroMexico in aspects that they did React to the situation.


Although its a shame that they did get fired… I think its for the good of the pilots and the airline

17 Likes

That’s a rough situation. I feel bad that they got fired because accidents happen, but like you said it’s for the safety and for the good of the airline. Good to know that there were no fatalities though!

1 Like

Wait I thought most aircraft nowadays were equipped with Microburst warning in their weather radars!!

1 Like

Btw if you ask were I got this from, Delta 191 crash explained most aircraft had been equipped with this. Or maybe they saw it to late who knows. Thank god for no fatalities though

2 Likes

It’s honestly a tough call but I believe Aeromexico did the right decision in firing the pilots. They were seated improperly and performed improper checklists resulting in the crash…

6 Likes

Honestly I agree with you! there was definitely some very poor decision making or negligence there.

2 Likes

I fully agree with what you said, AeroMexico definitely did the right thing to keep their reputation

1 Like

While i respect everyones opinions, there are facts not present unless looked into the link; & i quote “Investigators blamed a sudden downdraft known as a microburst for bringing the jet, and said there was no evidence of pilot error.” even though it was an accident with some voilations to regulations, sofar this peice is claiming the microburst was the sole cause and the experienced pilot took control. Microbursts have been a common occurrence to some degree and has caused many issues if not many crashes before. I feel like it should be brought to public knowledge what they were told as the flight deck crew by superiors or others, & while not being in airlines, isnt the third pilot supposed to be the third observing supervisor/trainer that would have been solely trained on the matter of giving extra eyes & trained experience to make sure everything is done correctly so these voilations were dealt with at the very second? Secondly isnt the captain while maybe knowing policy if a third trainer/superviser stated that the trainee was supposed to be there how much could he have done or said while this trainer would have been doing this as his job? While i respect everyones opinions it seems it wasnt any of their faults and that the airline is just trying to get some good PR on this. I feel bad that the captain might have been marked and has his record tainted through the rest of his career that he may not have willingly or knowingly went against regulation. Until we know if it was all of them going knowingly against their regulations would be the key point to this in my opinion.
As a note i am not slandering, or giving any negative remarks towards anyone. As stated i am giving my opinion, without any disrespect to any other opinion and if i have been misinformed or am wrong in any way i would only ask to be informed in a respectful way. Thank you.

6 Likes

What do you mean he was not seated properl

Can you clarify that? Is it a question? Is it a response? Im not trying to be negative in any way im just courious.

It is a Question !!!

Im sorry, i did not mean to be rude; i just could not understand the punctuation behind your statement.
After looking at other articles, somehow they are just claiming the trainee should not have been in the copilot’s seat according to their regulations and with this statement claimed to be from what they claim Aeromexico


The airticle is alittle lackluster but to properly give sources, here is the link:https://www.argus-press.com/news/international/article_b898f0e8-2587-584a-aead-19ce1f8b772d.html
Correction sorry for the first screenshot, my phone didn’t upload the right image.

2 Likes

Oh ok thanks now I understand.

From Avherald.

On Sep 5th 2018 Mexico’s DGAC reported in a press conference first results into the investigation. There were three flight crew on the flight deck, a first officer in training was pilot flying in the right hand seat. The takeoff run began in a head wind scenario, which quickly changed into a strong right crosswind and ultimately a strong tail wind as result of a microburst. The investigation so far has not found any technical (both engines were operating normally until being separated from the wing) or human factors issue contributing to the accident. With the flight data, confirmed by meteorologists, simulator tests were conducted, no flight crew was able to get through the scenario with a different outcome. However, the training of the first officer under training had not been authorized and was not carried out according to the required protocols. Although this is not the cause of the accident, it will cause administrative response by the DGAC to establish the responsibilities and apply according sanctions.

On Sep 6th 2018 the DGAC also released the preliminary technical report in Spanish releasing some FDR graphics as well as surveillance camera photos showing the weather development, otherwise the text of the report mainly engages in introducing the commission, its sub groups and who did what but no narrative of the accident sequence whatsoever, except that the report specifically mentions the presense of a microburst over the aerodrome.

The simulation graphics suggest, the aircraft became airborne at a right crosswind of about 11 knots and was in the initial climb, when the right crosswind intensified to 33 knots and turned into a tailwind of 24 knots causing the aircraft to lose height again.

The FDR graphs reports that the speed over ground was steadily increasing initially with some head wind component (thus showing the IAS higher than speed over ground) which turned into a tail wind about 5 seconds prior to end of recording, the aircraft reached a maximum IAS of about 151 KIAS decreasing again to about 125 KIAS at the end of the recording. The aircraft reached a maximum height of about 30 feet AGL.

In the description of one of the photos the DGAC mentions that there were impact marks of the left hand engine on taxiway B.

3 Likes

Great job! Thank you for the clarification on everything!

I think that this firing of the pilots has a lot more to do with culture rather than the facts. If this were to happen someplace like in the U.S., there would be a lot of corporate backlash for the airline that decided to fire the pilots. However, in a place like Mexico, Aeromexico is the flag carrier for them, so they faced a national embarrassment, and may have felt the need to make someone pay for it.

Or it could be…

There had to be some consequence for it.

3 Likes

Lol I forgot to include that there always is an element of pilot error (or stupidness in this case).