Well I can replicate the problem using a cinder block. That doesn't mean I've solved the problem.
If anything, the point is NOT to replicate the problem, but have the problem occur in field testing. If you introduce the tester into the test, then you run the risk of corrupting the result.
Has anyone ever gathered up all the UA incidents and grouped them say by VIN number? By foot size? By age and sex?
Many many years ago, my father (an incredible man on many levels, but also a thinking/troubleshooting mechanic, as opposed to a replacement artist) had a car in to his welding shop with a problem that no one else could figure out. I forget the car or the exact circumstances, but on reflection I imagine it went something like this:
The ailment was an unexplained fast idle. It eluded a number of 'mechanics' that even swapped entire assemblies of carb parts etc, all to end up with this incessant fast idle. I'm guessing that even with all the 'big' parts replacing, and choke assemblies etc etc that every one of those guys used the original return spring set. My guess is, it was one of those spring-within-a-spring sets. Well Dad found the cause of the fast idle in only minutes. There was a tiny pebble had lodged just-so, on the inner spring (or somewhere) and managed to hold its irritating position through all the hands and parts-replacing and re and re's. Even as a little kid I remember the guy throwing his cap high into the air as he spun a couple 360's as he heard his old sled purr like a kitten once again and in only a few minutes. "So Harry, what in blazes was it?" Dad held up this little pebble. Didn't charge the guy a cent...he slipped the pebble in his pocket (I suspect to show the other guys that it stumped) and he left happier than a pig in a slop pile.
There are a number of morals to embrace here...I'll let you pick the ones that mean the most to you as individuals, as obviously pretty intelligent, thinking/troubleshooting (trying anyway) men.
Look, its indeed possible that human error is at play in some of the cases, even though I don't think its a major factor. But look here folks, EVEN if some people really, due to big boots or what, DO step on the wrong pedal, it only takes a second or two to realize that and correct it right ?
Thats why I am convinced that, sure there are a few Nissan, Hyundai, Honda drivers stepping on the wrong pedal, but because its their fault not the car's, naturally they will correct it soon and thats why the number of spectacular crashes due to SUA of these other manufacturers are WAY WAY Much lower than toyota's.
On the other hand, we see some runaway toyotas plunging into river banks, dove over hills (Have you all seen the photos at abc ? I have), and reports of runaway till very high speeds BEFORE the final crash. Now my question is, do you ever hear reports of Nissans, Hyundais, Hondas etc reaching high speeds like that before the final crash ?
And do you hear reports of Nissan,s Hyundais, Hondas that suffer SUA go into river banks, hit many cars at high speed, etc ? I don't. Only toyota have this cases.
So its clear that for non-toyota cases, any driver mistake is quickly corrected, and thus we hardly have reports of spectacular crashes from non-toyotas.
It does not make sense to me that toyota drivers are SO SLOW to realize their mistakes that they will keep pressing on the gas pedal and keep accelerating till the final crash at high speed.
confused somewhat as to why the off-duty CHP Officer Saylor didn't try and put his Lexus rental sedan in to neutral and pull off the road. That remains the 1947 Roswell UFO incident SUA poster-story to wonder why about. And I say that with a very, very sad backdrop of 4 dead people on that San Diego, CA, highway. Tragic without a good explanation, and that makes it the one SUA story I remained very curious about and really wanting a decent answer from the manufacturer, toyota motors.
Radio Frequency Interference, RFI implies an external to vehicle electronics issue, ie, an RF generator is interfering with Fly-By-Wire controls of aircraft The FIRST ground vehicle to experience this phenomenon would logically be a car that was pushing the state-of-the-art in Drive-By-Wire technology, it certainly wouldn't be a YUGO, it'd be a high tech company like Toyota is Unfortunately for Toyota, often its the leader of the pack, the point man who is clobbered first. 2 reasons its hard to track down- 1st no one realizes its Cell Phones (the new tech kid on the block) and 2nd, its NOT a digital problem, its analog where by sheer happenstance Cable Harness Wire Length of that car's particular Turn Signal and Wave Length of that particular Cell Phone used just happen to be precisely TUNED to each other all by happenstance, like tuning a radio station- its either right on the station or you get NO SIGNAL transmitted to be picked up. So what you have is a perfect example of Murphy's Law at work- stuff happens
That's because, as I mentioned, the general public is simply not grasping that the entire system is a ROBOTIC COMPUTER CONTROLLED VIDEO GAME.
Absolutely every single function on these systems from the brakes to the throttle, the gear selection, and the ability to even turn the car on and off is now controlled by the same computer system. If it crashes, it's absolutely the same as your home computer crashing while in the middle of something. Of course the car can't be shifted into neutral. Of course the brakes don't work. Of course you can't turn it off. The brain controlling the entire thing just had a stroke and has seized up.
Short of pulling the fuse to the computer or injection system/fuel pump, you're boned if it really is getting stuck in a closed cycle loop. I'd wager that 99% of people who drive their car don't know where the fuses are. But that's what would come to my mind in 1 second. Because cycling the power manually is the only way to recover a stuck computer. Open that fuse cover and start pulling everything until it shuts itself off.
I'd drive a vehicle like this. But only after I wired a toggle switch to the main power wire to the computer module.
***BUT*** The main issue as I've said since the beginning, and the real solution to all of this is to not use such systems in the first place. As long as drive-by-wire systems exist that aren't truly fail-safe and properly redundant, there will always be problems with vehicles going out of control.
the systems on jet airliners...they still have the archaic hydraulic system operating in the background in case the fly-by-wire system should fail...in even the slightest little manner.
But look here folks, EVEN if some people really, due to big boots or what, DO step on the wrong pedal, it only takes a second or two to realize that and correct it right ?
Apparently not, if we go by the Audi archival data. In fact, it makes more sense that they *wouldn't* realize it, as this completely explains the "mystery" of UA.
If you can accept the hypothesis that the driver had no idea that their foot was on the gas, not on the brake (or on both), and that they kept their foot on the gas (which they were 100% convinced was the brake)---if you accept this theory, then everything that happened to all the cars actually makes sense.
No other explanation, so far, is anywhere near as inclusive.
RF interference is just more 16th century epicycles. I can certainly believe in RF interference----we can recall for instance how cell phone chargers can negate those in-pocket ignition fobs, but even this was a 1+1 =2 kind of affair. You removed, or bought a more expensive, cell phone charger, and your car started again.
Even RF interference, which is the most plauible counter-theory I've heard, does not address the inability of the driver to stop the car with the brakes NO MATTER WHICH MAKE OF CAR is suffering UA.
So RF can defeat the brake systems of 6 different kinds of car?
Have you not seen the pictures of the front brake rotors and pads from the Saylor car..?? I don't know if pictures exist anywhere for the Sike's incident but the investigation statements indicate severe brake use. And there is Mrs Smith who was able to use the brakes to bring the car to a stop after she pulled onto the grassy medium and the tires lost drive traction.
Obvious there was not brake FAILURE but a failure of the brakes to have the capacity to overcome the engine driving the front wheels at WOT
"..So RF can defeat the brake systems of 6 different kinds of car?..."
No, again, there is no indication that the brakes were defeated by whatever causative factor resulted in SUA. The brakes were "defeated" by the WOT engine driving the PRIMARY braking resource, the FRONT wheels, along with the momentum, inertia, of the vehicle alread traveling at 60+ MPH.
Well, all that means is that SHE couldn't stop the car. I can stop any modern car at WOT with the brakes. It's not pretty, but I can do it.
Of course, NO ONE can do it for a sustained length of time. The brakes will overheat and become ineffective. The idea is to stop the car long enough to be able to shut it off or control it by any one of these means:
1. Turn off the key 2. Pull up the gas pedal (on mechanical linkages or in cases of bad carpeting) 3. Put the car in neutral (it might destroy itself but it won't destroy you) 4. Press the on/off start button (various but not all cars)
What I think is happening is driver error + driver panic, leading to making very bad decisions.
When I worked in Alaska, just about every plane crash up there (they have a LOT of them) is pilot error of one type or another, some of them *really stupid*. (running out of gas, flying into a blind canyon, taking photos instead of flying the plane, overloading it, hitting trees, landing on skis in flat light, etc).
"....I can stop any modern car at WOT with the brakes..."
Sorry, you simply should not expect us to accept that as a true, well founded, statement, at least not once the car is also "at speed", 60 mph plus.
Additionally I can't help but wonder just what action ABS might be taking/doing, or not, in this situation, 60mph, WOT, and FULL brake pedal depression.
1. Sorry, the engine/transaxle ECU is off doing something else and not paying attention, polling, the ignition key electrical contact switch. 2. Sorry, DBW is calling for WOT due to CC "accel" mode. 3. Ditto to 1. 4. Ditto to 1.
I've brought this up before somewhere and now i can't find it. But regarding the off duty or retired cop who crashed in the Lexus (I think it was) it was a borrowed car also I believe and was not aware you had to push and hold for 3 seconds or however long to shut the car off..I can picture him in traffic - accelerates to grab a different lane, maybe even aggressively cuz he had had his fill of idiots that day, then lets off, hey...car still accelerating...grabs brakes again, it slows but as soon as he lets up the brakes, it is still under power...meanwhile it is gaining speed faster and faster due to the whole wtf times as he pressed the brake and each time harder and harder but also they are becoming superheated so fade (combined with the fact it has a higher HP and torque than your avg vehicle) becomes prevelant enough that now the brakes (no matter how powerful and capable under normal anticipated use) aren't able to overcome the output from the engine. It would be like simulated track use. And remember, this whole time the tranny might be in one or even two lower gears from his original acceleration so would have amazing torque to overcome superheated brakes. And even if his wtf moment happened from a sustained cruise in top gear, still, given the Twilight Zone moments when each time he realized, hey, the dang car won't let me out of cruise mode and keeps accelerating as soon as he lets off the brakes. He might even hit the accelerator thinking it was stuck... this could be something many might think to try and of course now the engine is continuing with even more throttle. You combine that with a strange car (to him) traffic, maybe in an area he isn't familiar with, I could picture a panic moment in the extreme. But really, it takes all kinds. I am surprised that cop (even with all the wtf moments) simply realized that after one, or at most TWO times of letting off the brakes, on the third application he should have known to get on those binders hard and don't let up. If he couldn't get it out of gear (I find that too hard to believe) at least if he stayed hard on those brakes in the first or second place, I think they should have over come the power of the vehicle.
Why not have a simple brake light circuit that cancels the dang super computer in charge of the car? Anyway, this whole thing touches on so much that I feel is wrong with the world of driving. People should all show their competence behind the wheel by driving manuals. Then you would probably also have people that can parallel park their own car instead of some computer doing it for them. And furthermore, I suspect ABS had a lot to do with that runaway, and again, why build cars that make less competent people drive? Shouldn't it be the other way around? We already have too much congestion. That's because we too many cell phone texters iPodders etc that are barely behind the wheel. If these people were forced to at least get their licence with a manual shift and parallel park on hill in the snow, (and do it all without burning the clutch) then they would prove that they have some clue of friction and what is going on under their butt. They could learn and recognise threshold braking as it's happening. And do it without ABS. I think that as we employ more and more airbags and safety devices, we have gone too far. The pendulum does its infamous swing. As it nears centre grd with max velocity it goes beyond the scope of requiring OUR input. We have become complacent and have this (false) sense of protection in our steel caged safety nets and unfortunately exercise a sense of entitlement that we simply don't deserve. I believe that more and more incidents of road rage are probably related to this somehow also. And all the other associated new tech that the mfgrs seem to think we all must have. We buy the crap so they keep upping the anti. Let's get back to a simpler life shall we? And live.. Are we not the ones who should be in control of the dang cars?
Anyway...they can build them, but they can't fix them. It's wrong on many levels.
"...Are we not the ones who should be in control of the dang cars.."
There is NO way, at least at the current time, that we humans can independently control all the functionality of the new technology, VSC individual braking or "unbraking" of ANY wheel or wheels, for instance.
There is no indication that Saylor knew, or not, of the PB stop function. But what is virtually certain is that he would have tried to shift into neutral. For that to not be successful the engine/transaxle controlling ECU would have to have been NOT polling the gear shift selection switches. And if it was not polling the gear shift selection switches it very likely was also not polling the PB start/stop switch.
Again, I ask all of you, doesn't having the engine/transaxle ECU, instruction execution sequence locked in a deadly embrace, executing ONLY the CC "accel" mode, explain all of the primary SUA cases..?
Yes, but I believe it was with a Prius which has ALWAYS had a form of "brake over-ride". Apply the brakes in a NORMALLY operating Prius and the HSD system goes immediately into regenerative braking mode.
On the other hand if in the Sikes case we make my assumption that the HSD firmware control system was NOT operating normally, instead locked in a tight loop continuously execution the CC "accel" mode, the ECU would have never "known" that the brake pedal was depressed.
Put that "cinder black" on teh gas pedal of a normally operating non-hybrid FWD Toyota and then see if the brakes will bring it to a stop in a reasonable distance from 60+ mph.
Again, I ask all of you, doesn't having the engine/transaxle ECU, instruction execution sequence locked in a deadly embrace, executing ONLY the CC "accel" mode, explain all of the primary SUA cases..?
Not unless someone actually makes a Toyota do this---nobody has yet far as I know.
Theories without falsifiable facts in place are useless to the investigator.
Why hasn't any computer scientist been able to recreate this deadly embrace, even "artificially" or in some jury-rigged fashion?
I agree, but if we had the iPod and cell phone undone from our ears (or at least turned down) when driving in a snow storm or heavy rain with hydroplane ridges and cruise set (and that from someone who loves it loud) and had people behind the wheel that showed some capability of recognizing available traction when they are bootin' along on less than 30% left rubber, not waiting to grab a prevous wheel track through the slush line when they change lanes, not tailgating or over driving their vision in heavy fog and all the other things that many drivers do (again with the sense of their safety nets around them) then they could actually feel in the seat of their pants, that it is more slippery than they thought and to slow down. Quit trying to defy the law of physics. Ya know? Somehow I suspect some of what I posted will be lost on many maybe.
There is a road near me that is in a very exclusive and perceived elite tourist area. It is a very twisty road and tightens up a lot near the top end. You will find many Porsches and MB and BMWs twisting their way up thru those tight sections and they have done it for 40 years and never once (in summer on dry pavement) has a car gone into the ditch/rockcut on any of those tight corners at the top. Not once in 40 years! That is until a few years ago when a guy, we'll call Jack, managed it with his Porsche 9.. not sure the AWD drive one...turbo, very fast, but was the first year they intro'd electronic stability control. What are the odds that that driver (who totaled his car) was behind the wheel trying those corners faster than he ever had in the past because in the back of his mind, he assumed the new tech would save his sorry butt. I don't suppose he thought for one moment that electronics can not overcome the laws of physics when pushed beyond certain plateaus. And therein lies the problem. There are tons of 'Jacks' out there.
We have made cars 'drivable' by less competent people, who lack the reasoning skills or common sense that should be a prerequisite for road sharing. Just because I have the ability to pick up a scalpel and know which side is sharp, doesn't mean I automatically have the inherent skill to do brain surgery. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Some can handle the heat and others can't. It's not anyone's fault per se, but, IMO, fault can be placed more and more if we continue to try to idiot-proof our machinery. Insurance rates alone (altho I know you guys don't pay anywhere close to what Cdns pay in ON) wouldn't be as high as they are if we had a better system in place to scrutinize who will be allowed to drive and who won't. If we took a step back, we could rule out a lot of these drivers, and the need for ESC and ABS wouldn't be front and centre anymore. And we might have a car that will do as it's told when it's told to stop, instead of complicated drive-by-wire systems that are so integrated and reliant on perfect scenarios and algorithms and with the planets aligned, to function properly. There are many other glitches that go hand in hand with all this tech. There are issues with pushbutton starting, proximity fobs, fuel injector nozzle fuel cut-outs/torque convertor messages on deceleration approaching stops and you name it. Even innocent enough extras like sound systems. USB and iPod etc etc, but they are riddled with bugs too. Input levels over-driving the preamps, but only if the auto-climate control is set 20 degrees different from driver to passenger side ...people with cell phones using 20 bucks of their 30/mo allowance just trying to figure out which new phone they will have to buy so that their new Bluetooth equipped car will recognize it, and on and on it goes.
"Again, I ask all of you, doesn't having the engine/transaxle ECU, instruction execution sequence locked in a deadly embrace, executing ONLY the CC "accel" mode, explain all of the primary SUA cases..?"
While the content of these systems is far beyond my area of expertise, I do know what you are asking. It does seem to me tho (admittedly with my limitations I just pointed out) to be a stretch to think that any system could be so presumedly locked in this deadly embrace, by triggers that are apparently impossible (so far) to recreate.
Surely a simple circuit of 12 volt power could be 'infront' of the super computer, and if a just a few (keep them low in number) major parameters don't jive, that power could be cut to it. I suppose though, to keep it simple then power gets cut everywhere, which turns off ABS, even the engine possibly, which quickly ends power brake boost etc. But isn't that still preferable to UA?
Maybe too much emphasis has been put on trying to avoid liability when they designed them. Ironic eh?
I've brought this up before somewhere and now i can't find it. But regarding the off duty or retired cop who crashed in the Lexus (I think it was) it was a borrowed car also I believe and was not aware you had to push and hold for 3 seconds or however long to shut the car off
Saylor was an off duty California Highway Patrolman.
Saylor was in the loaner 2009 Lexus ES350 because he had dropped his own Lexus off for service that morning.
The '06 IS250 has keyless ignition. (link). I don't know it it works differently from the one in the '09 ES350.
I can't imagine why Saylor would not have tried to shift the car into neutral and try to get the floor mat unstuck. Occam's Razor ( :P ) says that's the first thing he would have tried after the pedal stuck and the brakes weren't stopping the car.
I can't imagine why Saylor would not have tried to shift the car into neutral and try to get the floor mat unstuck. Occam's Razor ( ) says that's the first thing he would have tried after the pedal stuck and the brakes weren't stopping the car.
And, once again... There was a qualified pilot flying the Colgan Air plane that crashed in Buffalo a couple of years ago.
Basic flying 101 teaches that, in a stall condition, you push forward on the yoke to gain airspeed. He pulled back, increasing the stall, and we know this for a fact, from looking at the flight data recorders.
Sometimes people panic. Qualified, trained people.
Definitely pilot error (and co-pilot error). Interesting to note that the plane was on autopilot when it went down. And that it wasn't in a stall when the pilot first pitched the nose up. (Wikipedia, NY Times)
So, maybe the black box just thought the stick shaker was working correctly, but maybe the pilot didn't get the clue. Maybe someone was on their cell and it interferred with the fly by wire controls. Maybe .... yikes, a flying pig. Duck!
Exactly. Occam's Razor (ahem) tells us that the CHP officer probably panicked. Putting the car in neutral is hardly intuitive. It certainly wouldn't be my first move, and probably not my second one either.
The fact that this was not his own car rather tilts the answer toward human error as well IMO.
You recall, for instance, how John Denver, a very experienced private pilot, crashed and died because he did not know how to switch on the reserve fuel tank on the plane he was flying--a new aircraft that he was thinking of buying.
If I remember correctly, wasn't the pilot trying to "chat up" his co-pilot, a young lady pilot?
That could certainly be distracting!
From your link...
Unfortunately, instead of following the established stall recovery procedure of adding full power and lowering the nose to break the stall, the captain only added about 75% power and continued applying nose-up inputs. The stall continued until the stick pusher activated. The stick pusher is designed as a last ditch effort to lower the airplane's attitude to fly out of the stall. The captain overrode the pusher and continued pulling on the control yoke resulting in the upset and subsequent loss of control.[24] The plane pitched up at an angle of 31 degrees in its final moments, before pitching down at 45 degrees. It then rolled to the left at 46 degrees and snapped back to the right at 105 degrees. Occupants aboard experienced forces estimated at nearly twice that of gravity. Witnesses on the ground claimed to have heard the engines sputter just before the crash.[25]
The plane struggled for about 25 seconds, during which time the crew made no emergency declaration. It rapidly lost altitude and then crashed into a private home at 6038 Long Street, about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from the end of the runway, and nearly directly under its intended approach path, with the nose pointed away from the destination airport.
Even though he knew better, he still went against his training multiple times.
There was some indication in the Wiki story that the crew wasn't paying proper attention - cockpit diversions. Note that he mostly flying a Saab earlier, a plane that had issues with tail icing, so his training may have caused him to revert to an action he may have taken on the Saab. Maybe Saylor assumed that the loaner Lexus controls were like the ones on the one he owned and he didn't know how to get it into neutral.
In John Denver's case he supposedly knew where the fuel tank switch was but may not have known which way to turn it (like Saylor knew where the ignition "switch" was but perhaps didn't know how to turn it off?). The main factor with Denver may have been his failure to fuel the plane before taking off and a contributing factor was when (if?) he reached over his left shoulder to switch tanks, he may have stomped on the right rudder. (AV Web - Close-Up: The John Denver Crash)
One has to suspect that the search for the "mysterious ghost" in the Prius systems has a lot to do with the search for product liability, rather than a search for the actual cause of the accident.
Sorry, I assumed the Saab stuff was in my Wiki link and now I've lost it. Anyway, somewhere I read that the Saab 340 tended to nose over when the tail iced and the captain may have assumed that the Bombardier behaved the same way when he pulled back on the stick. But it doesn't, being a different aircraft and all.
Nosing over isn't too good a flight condition either.
In case I don't find that link, it's touched on here and here. (Aviation Today and the WSJ)
Insofar as I am aware there is NO indication whatsoever that Saylor didn't try to shift into neutral, didn't try to hold the PB button down long enough to stop the engine, etc. There is also no actual evidence, only circumstantial, that the floor mat was the causative factor.
And there is a rather clear indication that Saylor might have encountered two SUA incidents that day. Witnesses have stated that they first observed the Saylor vehicle parked on the side of the freeway with the hazard lights blinking. Their next observation was with the Saylor vehicle speeding pass then at ~100MPH with the hazard lights still blinking.
Did Saylor somehow overcome an initial SUA incident and then thinking it was fixed decide to proceed to his destination..?
I'd forgotten about that detail. Here's a story talking about it. Someone in the comments in there also noted the Lexus that Saylor owned may have been his wife's car, and he may not have been all that familiar with it. (Sign On San Diego)
Yes, I am pretty skeptical that any electronic lock or freeze up would lock the tranny in gear, altho i guess because the new autos have so much associated electronics, it's maybe possible.
Interesting about the chap that just had to pull on the stick trying to keep his nose up. Poor guy, and passengers too no doubt. There are some very capable pilots out there tho. That guy that dropped it in the Hudson comes to mind right away. He knew he had to drop it down tail first but not too tail first. The guy was a genuine hero even tho it was his job. Rarely do people execute job tasks with next to zero moments notice and get those kinds of results. Surgeons, heavy truck drivers etc pull it off sometimes.
Saylor is not an old senile octogenarian, he is a highway patrol veteran. And he went to heaven because I have read some reports that say putting into neutral DOES NOT stop the engine from continuing to run !
Its like when a PC hangs. Even if you press the Control - Alt - Del button, no respond at all ! Have you guys experience this ? That is the toyota version of that kind of serious Error. Just that instead of the engine shutting down, it went berserk.
Thats why I say somethins really wrong with toyota's electronics ! Brakes have no effect, putting into neutral have no effect. The damn car simply went berserk !
That, folks, is how Saylor hit the dirt. Tell me what other occupation prepares a driver for such unexpected car berserk behaviour other than a highway patrol officer.
If Saylor can't save himself, man, somethins really wrong with toyota !
Love them if you want, but I just use common sense ! Oh yes, I have never read reports of another highway officer having such a ghastly death in a Nissan, Hyundai, Honda etc...
Unless you can prove that ALL highway patrol officers own toyotas or rent toyotas in the United States.
By the way, Saylor must have crashed at really high speed, because he does not even bother to try to open the door and jump out of his doomed toyota, the way they did it in Hollywood movies. Maybe he knows that jumping out like that at high speed at a freeway risks being instantly crushed by the next speeding car behind him on another lane.
For him and his family, THERE IS NO ESCAPE. What a terrible way to die ! Its like in a plane having engine problems, the plane heads for the ground at an ever increasing speed, there is no parachute, and you know opening the door and jumping out is not an option.
Imagine the last few minutes, last few seconds of these victims.... They realize they will not see their loved ones again, or they know their loved ones beside them will crash and burn with him.
I salute Americans who sticks with toyota and refused to move to another safer airline like Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Ford etc... You have a lot of GUTS !!
By the way, if its true that the majority of cases are driver error, then why did toyota RECALL more than 8 million of their cars ?
For what ? What for ? For a non-existing problem just to show they care ?
Are they scared that more than 8 million of their customers will screw up ? Wow ! Thats very kind of them ! But hey, is there anyway a recall can prevent future accidents due to driver screw ups ?
But recent reports say that toyota is still the top of mind among US car buyers. So its obvious that in the US, the BIGGER and more frequent the number of recalls, the better the quality image is !
Thus I suggest to all Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Ford folks, go and recall as much of your old cars tomorrow. If possible, go recall ALL the cars that you ever sold. Maybe your brand will take the top US buyer consideration spot !
But strangely enough, in China and other countries like Europe, people strangely feel that if a manufacturer's number of recalls is way ABOVE other manufacturers in terms of quantity, severity of cases and frequency, people get worried and switch brands !
Thats why in China, Nissan is the number one Japanese car maker there, Hyundai is already bigger than ANY other Japanese brand there, and toyota is just another average sized player over there with decreasing sales recently.
The Chinese obviously know NOTHING about looking for quality cars !!!
Hmmmm.....all those recalls based on 32 reported cases of a loose brake light switch bracket. If US hospitals were held to those standards of error, they'd all have locks on their doors.
Toyota recalls cars because unlike Japan, our lawyer/engineer ratio is a lot more skewed than theirs.
and putting the nose of the aircraft down always increases speed, right, 100% of the time?
Regardless of make of plane, the only cure for a stall is increased airspeed. Pulling up on the nose NEVER increases airspeed. It reduces it...ALWAYS.
I'm not questioning why the Buffalo crash pilot didn't put the nose of the aircraft up or down, I'm just asking. Why on earth if its a given that the only cure for a stall is increased airspeed(prop planes included here) did this plane's pilot pull up on the nose of that plane?
Now, normally, you have a power or reset switch on a PC, but some kiosks and point of sale terminals simply don't have them and if it hard crashes, nothing works. Buttons, keys, mouse... nada. Only physically yanking the cord out of the outlet will turn it off. You've probably had your PC crash a few times over the years like this as well. I've also seen it happen quite frequently with CNC machines and other computer controlled machinery. The typical response is to swear a bit and cycle the power switch. Figuring out what happened is usually not possible, any more than a typical random PC crash is. You just restart and move on.
Now, if it was me, I'd start abusing the system in a car to the point where it did jam and break and see how it reacts to a worst-case scenario. Can you turn the engine off? Does the brake system work any more? My guess is that Toyota never designed it for such a scenario, as it would require a lot more time and expense that is typically put into consumer products.
I'm not questioning why the Buffalo crash pilot didn't put the nose of the aircraft up or down, I'm just asking. Why on earth if its a given that the only cure for a stall is increased airspeed(prop planes included here) did this plane's pilot pull up on the nose of that plane?
No one will ever know for sure. But keep in mind that they were on final approach in foggy conditions, so they probably did not have a view of the ground. Pushing the stick down to gain airspeed only works if your have enough altitude to gain back that airspeed without flying into the ground.
There's a term for that also, Controlled Flight Into Terrain, (CFIT), or something like that.
I would think it would be the last thing anyone would do in a panic. I've never seen anyone do it at any rate----really, you're heading for a brick wall at 60 mph and you decide the first thing you'll do is put the car in neutral?---well, then, I sincerely tip my hat to your cool and calm demeanor.
I would think the order of action for most would be:
1. slam on the brake 2. try to pull up the gas pedal 3. turn off the key 4. change your underwear 5. put car in neutral
Comments
If anything, the point is NOT to replicate the problem, but have the problem occur in field testing. If you introduce the tester into the test, then you run the risk of corrupting the result.
Has anyone ever gathered up all the UA incidents and grouped them say by VIN number? By foot size? By age and sex?
Check out the stats... Toyota isn't the only game in town with UA. Its just the one at the top of the heap now. Before them, it was Ford.
See the link...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124235858
The ailment was an unexplained fast idle. It eluded a number of 'mechanics' that even swapped entire assemblies of carb parts etc, all to end up with this incessant fast idle. I'm guessing that even with all the 'big' parts replacing, and choke assemblies etc etc that every one of those guys used the original return spring set. My guess is, it was one of those spring-within-a-spring sets. Well Dad found the cause of the fast idle in only minutes. There was a tiny pebble had lodged just-so, on the inner spring (or somewhere) and managed to hold its irritating position through all the hands and parts-replacing and re and re's. Even as a little kid I remember the guy throwing his cap high into the air as he spun a couple 360's as he heard his old sled purr like a kitten once again and in only a few minutes. "So Harry, what in blazes was it?" Dad held up this little pebble. Didn't charge the guy a cent...he slipped the pebble in his pocket (I suspect to show the other guys that it stumped) and he left happier than a pig in a slop pile.
There are a number of morals to embrace here...I'll let you pick the ones that mean the most to you as individuals, as obviously pretty intelligent, thinking/troubleshooting (trying anyway) men.
Thats why I am convinced that, sure there are a few Nissan, Hyundai, Honda drivers stepping on the wrong pedal, but because its their fault not the car's, naturally they will correct it soon and thats why the number of spectacular crashes due to SUA of these other manufacturers are WAY WAY Much lower than toyota's.
On the other hand, we see some runaway toyotas plunging into river banks, dove over hills (Have you all seen the photos at abc ? I have), and reports of runaway till very high speeds BEFORE the final crash. Now my question is, do you ever hear reports of Nissans, Hyundais, Hondas etc reaching high speeds like that before the final crash ?
And do you hear reports of Nissan,s Hyundais, Hondas that suffer SUA go into river banks, hit many cars at high speed, etc ? I don't. Only toyota have this cases.
So its clear that for non-toyota cases, any driver mistake is quickly corrected, and thus we hardly have reports of spectacular crashes from non-toyotas.
It does not make sense to me that toyota drivers are SO SLOW to realize their mistakes that they will keep pressing on the gas pedal and keep accelerating till the final crash at high speed.
Right ?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
issue, ie, an RF generator is interfering with Fly-By-Wire controls of aircraft
The FIRST ground vehicle to experience this phenomenon would logically be
a car that was pushing the state-of-the-art in Drive-By-Wire technology, it
certainly wouldn't be a YUGO, it'd be a high tech company like Toyota is
Unfortunately for Toyota, often its the leader of the pack, the point man
who is clobbered first. 2 reasons its hard to track down- 1st no one realizes
its Cell Phones (the new tech kid on the block) and 2nd, its NOT a digital
problem, its analog where by sheer happenstance Cable Harness Wire Length of that car's particular Turn Signal and Wave Length of that particular Cell Phone used just happen to be precisely TUNED to each other all by happenstance, like tuning a radio station- its either right on
the station or you get NO SIGNAL transmitted to be picked up. So what
you have is a perfect example of Murphy's Law at work- stuff happens
Absolutely every single function on these systems from the brakes to the throttle, the gear selection, and the ability to even turn the car on and off is now controlled by the same computer system. If it crashes, it's absolutely the same as your home computer crashing while in the middle of something. Of course the car can't be shifted into neutral. Of course the brakes don't work. Of course you can't turn it off. The brain controlling the entire thing just had a stroke and has seized up.
Short of pulling the fuse to the computer or injection system/fuel pump, you're boned if it really is getting stuck in a closed cycle loop. I'd wager that 99% of people who drive their car don't know where the fuses are. But that's what would come to my mind in 1 second. Because cycling the power manually is the only way to recover a stuck computer. Open that fuse cover and start pulling everything until it shuts itself off.
I'd drive a vehicle like this. But only after I wired a toggle switch to the main power wire to the computer module.
***BUT***
The main issue as I've said since the beginning, and the real solution to all of this is to not use such systems in the first place. As long as drive-by-wire systems exist that aren't truly fail-safe and properly redundant, there will always be problems with vehicles going out of control.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Apparently not, if we go by the Audi archival data. In fact, it makes more sense that they *wouldn't* realize it, as this completely explains the "mystery" of UA.
If you can accept the hypothesis that the driver had no idea that their foot was on the gas, not on the brake (or on both), and that they kept their foot on the gas (which they were 100% convinced was the brake)---if you accept this theory, then everything that happened to all the cars actually makes sense.
No other explanation, so far, is anywhere near as inclusive.
RF interference is just more 16th century epicycles. I can certainly believe in RF interference----we can recall for instance how cell phone chargers can negate those in-pocket ignition fobs, but even this was a 1+1 =2 kind of affair. You removed, or bought a more expensive, cell phone charger, and your car started again.
Even RF interference, which is the most plauible counter-theory I've heard, does not address the inability of the driver to stop the car with the brakes NO MATTER WHICH MAKE OF CAR is suffering UA.
So RF can defeat the brake systems of 6 different kinds of car?
Er....I'm not buying that one.
How would the pilot contol those hydraulic systems if he lost the fly-by-wire control?
http://www.airliners.net/photo/0957790/
If it isn't shown on the 6 pm or 11 pm news, then it didn't happen (or matter)?
No offense, but you appear to be picking "selectively" for supporting items to substantiate your argument.
UA may indeed be real, and I'm open to seeing evidence, but what you described sure isn't it.
Obvious there was not brake FAILURE but a failure of the brakes to have the capacity to overcome the engine driving the front wheels at WOT
No, only triple redundancy electronically.
Hydraulics are still used as the motive force to move rudders and elevators, etc, but only under command of fly-by-wire electronics modules.
No, again, there is no indication that the brakes were defeated by whatever causative factor resulted in SUA. The brakes were "defeated" by the WOT engine driving the PRIMARY braking resource, the FRONT wheels, along with the momentum, inertia, of the vehicle alread traveling at 60+ MPH.
Can you buy that one..??
Of course, NO ONE can do it for a sustained length of time. The brakes will overheat and become ineffective. The idea is to stop the car long enough to be able to shut it off or control it by any one of these means:
1. Turn off the key
2. Pull up the gas pedal (on mechanical linkages or in cases of bad carpeting)
3. Put the car in neutral (it might destroy itself but it won't destroy you)
4. Press the on/off start button (various but not all cars)
What I think is happening is driver error + driver panic, leading to making very bad decisions.
When I worked in Alaska, just about every plane crash up there (they have a LOT of them) is pilot error of one type or another, some of them *really stupid*. (running out of gas, flying into a blind canyon, taking photos instead of flying the plane, overloading it, hitting trees, landing on skis in flat light, etc).
Sorry, you simply should not expect us to accept that as a true, well founded, statement, at least not once the car is also "at speed", 60 mph plus.
Additionally I can't help but wonder just what action ABS might be taking/doing, or not, in this situation, 60mph, WOT, and FULL brake pedal depression.
1. Sorry, the engine/transaxle ECU is off doing something else and not paying attention, polling, the ignition key electrical contact switch.
2. Sorry, DBW is calling for WOT due to CC "accel" mode.
3. Ditto to 1.
4. Ditto to 1.
But really, it takes all kinds. I am surprised that cop (even with all the wtf moments) simply realized that after one, or at most TWO times of letting off the brakes, on the third application he should have known to get on those binders hard and don't let up. If he couldn't get it out of gear (I find that too hard to believe) at least if he stayed hard on those brakes in the first or second place, I think they should have over come the power of the vehicle.
Why not have a simple brake light circuit that cancels the dang super computer in charge of the car? Anyway, this whole thing touches on so much that I feel is wrong with the world of driving. People should all show their competence behind the wheel by driving manuals. Then you would probably also have people that can parallel park their own car instead of some computer doing it for them. And furthermore, I suspect ABS had a lot to do with that runaway, and again, why build cars that make less competent people drive? Shouldn't it be the other way around? We already have too much congestion. That's because we too many cell phone texters iPodders etc that are barely behind the wheel. If these people were forced to at least get their licence with a manual shift and parallel park on hill in the snow, (and do it all without burning the clutch) then they would prove that they have some clue of friction and what is going on under their butt. They could learn and recognise threshold braking as it's happening. And do it without ABS. I think that as we employ more and more airbags and safety devices, we have gone too far. The pendulum does its infamous swing. As it nears centre grd with max velocity it goes beyond the scope of requiring OUR input. We have become complacent and have this (false) sense of protection in our steel caged safety nets and unfortunately exercise a sense of entitlement that we simply don't deserve. I believe that more and more incidents of road rage are probably related to this somehow also.
And all the other associated new tech that the mfgrs seem to think we all must have. We buy the crap so they keep upping the anti.
Let's get back to a simpler life shall we? And live..
Are we not the ones who should be in control of the dang cars?
Anyway...they can build them, but they can't fix them. It's wrong on many levels.
There is NO way, at least at the current time, that we humans can independently control all the functionality of the new technology, VSC individual braking or "unbraking" of ANY wheel or wheels, for instance.
Sorry, you simply should not expect us to accept that as a true, well founded, statement, at least not once the car is also "at speed", 60 mph plus.
Fair enough, you don't have to accept it, but I'd sure bet heavily on it.
Unless I'm hallucinating, didn't Toyota release a video of them actually doing this?
Again, I ask all of you, doesn't having the engine/transaxle ECU, instruction execution sequence locked in a deadly embrace, executing ONLY the CC "accel" mode, explain all of the primary SUA cases..?
Yes, but I believe it was with a Prius which has ALWAYS had a form of "brake over-ride". Apply the brakes in a NORMALLY operating Prius and the HSD system goes immediately into regenerative braking mode.
On the other hand if in the Sikes case we make my assumption that the HSD firmware control system was NOT operating normally, instead locked in a tight loop continuously execution the CC "accel" mode, the ECU would have never "known" that the brake pedal was depressed.
Put that "cinder black" on teh gas pedal of a normally operating non-hybrid FWD Toyota and then see if the brakes will bring it to a stop in a reasonable distance from 60+ mph.
http://www.insideline.com/car-video/fe_48.html
Not unless someone actually makes a Toyota do this---nobody has yet far as I know.
Theories without falsifiable facts in place are useless to the investigator.
Why hasn't any computer scientist been able to recreate this deadly embrace, even "artificially" or in some jury-rigged fashion?
What man can build, man can change, no?
There is a road near me that is in a very exclusive and perceived elite tourist area. It is a very twisty road and tightens up a lot near the top end. You will find many Porsches and MB and BMWs twisting their way up thru those tight sections and they have done it for 40 years and never once (in summer on dry pavement) has a car gone into the ditch/rockcut on any of those tight corners at the top. Not once in 40 years! That is until a few years ago when a guy, we'll call Jack, managed it with his Porsche 9.. not sure the AWD drive one...turbo, very fast, but was the first year they intro'd electronic stability control. What are the odds that that driver (who totaled his car) was behind the wheel trying those corners faster than he ever had in the past because in the back of his mind, he assumed the new tech would save his sorry butt. I don't suppose he thought for one moment that electronics can not overcome the laws of physics when pushed beyond certain plateaus. And therein lies the problem. There are tons of 'Jacks' out there.
We have made cars 'drivable' by less competent people, who lack the reasoning skills or common sense that should be a prerequisite for road sharing. Just because I have the ability to pick up a scalpel and know which side is sharp, doesn't mean I automatically have the inherent skill to do brain surgery. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Some can handle the heat and others can't. It's not anyone's fault per se, but, IMO, fault can be placed more and more if we continue to try to idiot-proof our machinery. Insurance rates alone (altho I know you guys don't pay anywhere close to what Cdns pay in ON) wouldn't be as high as they are if we had a better system in place to scrutinize who will be allowed to drive and who won't. If we took a step back, we could rule out a lot of these drivers, and the need for ESC and ABS wouldn't be front and centre anymore. And we might have a car that will do as it's told when it's told to stop, instead of complicated drive-by-wire systems that are so integrated and reliant on perfect scenarios and algorithms and with the planets aligned, to function properly. There are many other glitches that go hand in hand with all this tech. There are issues with pushbutton starting, proximity fobs, fuel injector nozzle fuel cut-outs/torque convertor messages on deceleration approaching stops and you name it. Even innocent enough extras like sound systems. USB and iPod etc etc, but they are riddled with bugs too. Input levels over-driving the preamps, but only if the auto-climate control is set 20 degrees different from driver to passenger side ...people with cell phones using 20 bucks of their 30/mo allowance just trying to figure out which new phone they will have to buy so that their new Bluetooth equipped car will recognize it, and on and on it goes.
You would be amazed at just how difficult this can oftentimes be..
While the content of these systems is far beyond my area of expertise, I do know what you are asking. It does seem to me tho (admittedly with my limitations I just pointed out) to be a stretch to think that any system could be so presumedly locked in this deadly embrace, by triggers that are apparently impossible (so far) to recreate.
Surely a simple circuit of 12 volt power could be 'infront' of the super computer, and if a just a few (keep them low in number) major parameters don't jive, that power could be cut to it. I suppose though, to keep it simple then power gets cut everywhere, which turns off ABS, even the engine possibly, which quickly ends power brake boost etc. But isn't that still preferable to UA?
Maybe too much emphasis has been put on trying to avoid liability when they designed them. Ironic eh?
Saylor was an off duty California Highway Patrolman.
Saylor was in the loaner 2009 Lexus ES350 because he had dropped his own Lexus off for service that morning.
Saylor's own Lexus was a 2006 IS250. (mabuhayradio.com).
The '06 IS250 has keyless ignition. (link). I don't know it it works differently from the one in the '09 ES350.
I can't imagine why Saylor would not have tried to shift the car into neutral and try to get the floor mat unstuck. Occam's Razor ( :P ) says that's the first thing he would have tried after the pedal stuck and the brakes weren't stopping the car.
And, once again... There was a qualified pilot flying the Colgan Air plane that crashed in Buffalo a couple of years ago.
Basic flying 101 teaches that, in a stall condition, you push forward on the yoke to gain airspeed. He pulled back, increasing the stall, and we know this for a fact, from looking at the flight data recorders.
Sometimes people panic. Qualified, trained people.
NY Times)
So, maybe the black box just thought the stick shaker was working correctly, but maybe the pilot didn't get the clue. Maybe someone was on their cell and it interferred with the fly by wire controls. Maybe .... yikes, a flying pig. Duck!
The fact that this was not his own car rather tilts the answer toward human error as well IMO.
You recall, for instance, how John Denver, a very experienced private pilot, crashed and died because he did not know how to switch on the reserve fuel tank on the plane he was flying--a new aircraft that he was thinking of buying.
Defective aircraft? I don't think so.
That could certainly be distracting!
From your link...
Unfortunately, instead of following the established stall recovery procedure of adding full power and lowering the nose to break the stall, the captain only added about 75% power and continued applying nose-up inputs. The stall continued until the stick pusher activated. The stick pusher is designed as a last ditch effort to lower the airplane's attitude to fly out of the stall. The captain overrode the pusher and continued pulling on the control yoke resulting in the upset and subsequent loss of control.[24] The plane pitched up at an angle of 31 degrees in its final moments, before pitching down at 45 degrees. It then rolled to the left at 46 degrees and snapped back to the right at 105 degrees. Occupants aboard experienced forces estimated at nearly twice that of gravity. Witnesses on the ground claimed to have heard the engines sputter just before the crash.[25]
The plane struggled for about 25 seconds, during which time the crew made no emergency declaration. It rapidly lost altitude and then crashed into a private home at 6038 Long Street, about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from the end of the runway, and nearly directly under its intended approach path, with the nose pointed away from the destination airport.
Even though he knew better, he still went against his training multiple times.
In John Denver's case he supposedly knew where the fuel tank switch was but may not have known which way to turn it (like Saylor knew where the ignition "switch" was but perhaps didn't know how to turn it off?). The main factor with Denver may have been his failure to fuel the plane before taking off and a contributing factor was when (if?) he reached over his left shoulder to switch tanks, he may have stomped on the right rudder. (AV Web - Close-Up: The John Denver Crash)
One has to suspect that the search for the "mysterious ghost" in the Prius systems has a lot to do with the search for product liability, rather than a search for the actual cause of the accident.
Nosing over isn't too good a flight condition either.
In case I don't find that link, it's touched on here and here. (Aviation Today and the WSJ)
And there is a rather clear indication that Saylor might have encountered two SUA incidents that day. Witnesses have stated that they first observed the Saylor vehicle parked on the side of the freeway with the hazard lights blinking. Their next observation was with the Saylor vehicle speeding pass then at ~100MPH with the hazard lights still blinking.
Did Saylor somehow overcome an initial SUA incident and then thinking it was fixed decide to proceed to his destination..?
Yes, I am pretty skeptical that any electronic lock or freeze up would lock the tranny in gear, altho i guess because the new autos have so much associated electronics, it's maybe possible.
Interesting about the chap that just had to pull on the stick trying to keep his nose up. Poor guy, and passengers too no doubt. There are some very capable pilots out there tho. That guy that dropped it in the Hudson comes to mind right away. He knew he had to drop it down tail first but not too tail first. The guy was a genuine hero even tho it was his job. Rarely do people execute job tasks with next to zero moments notice and get those kinds of results. Surgeons, heavy truck drivers etc pull it off sometimes.
However, it doesn't mean EVERY driver could do it.
Its like when a PC hangs. Even if you press the Control - Alt - Del button, no respond at all ! Have you guys experience this ? That is the toyota version of that kind of serious Error. Just that instead of the engine shutting down, it went berserk.
Thats why I say somethins really wrong with toyota's electronics ! Brakes have no effect, putting into neutral have no effect. The damn car simply went berserk !
That, folks, is how Saylor hit the dirt. Tell me what other occupation prepares a driver for such unexpected car berserk behaviour other than a highway patrol officer.
If Saylor can't save himself, man, somethins really wrong with toyota !
Love them if you want, but I just use common sense ! Oh yes, I have never read reports of another highway officer having such a ghastly death in a Nissan, Hyundai, Honda etc...
Unless you can prove that ALL highway patrol officers own toyotas or rent toyotas in the United States.
By the way, Saylor must have crashed at really high speed, because he does not even bother to try to open the door and jump out of his doomed toyota, the way they did it in Hollywood movies. Maybe he knows that jumping out like that at high speed at a freeway risks being instantly crushed by the next speeding car behind him on another lane.
For him and his family, THERE IS NO ESCAPE. What a terrible way to die ! Its like in a plane having engine problems, the plane heads for the ground at an ever increasing speed, there is no parachute, and you know opening the door and jumping out is not an option.
Imagine the last few minutes, last few seconds of these victims.... They realize they will not see their loved ones again, or they know their loved ones beside them will crash and burn with him.
I salute Americans who sticks with toyota and refused to move to another safer airline like Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Ford etc... You have a lot of GUTS !!
For what ? What for ? For a non-existing problem just to show they care ?
Are they scared that more than 8 million of their customers will screw up ? Wow ! Thats very kind of them ! But hey, is there anyway a recall can prevent future accidents due to driver screw ups ?
http://detnews.com/article/20101213/AUTO01/12130375/1148/rss25
But recent reports say that toyota is still the top of mind among US car buyers. So its obvious that in the US, the BIGGER and more frequent the number of recalls, the better the quality image is !
Thus I suggest to all Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Ford folks, go and recall as much of your old cars tomorrow. If possible, go recall ALL the cars that you ever sold. Maybe your brand will take the top US buyer consideration spot !
But strangely enough, in China and other countries like Europe, people strangely feel that if a manufacturer's number of recalls is way ABOVE other manufacturers in terms of quantity, severity of cases and frequency, people get worried and switch brands !
Thats why in China, Nissan is the number one Japanese car maker there, Hyundai is already bigger than ANY other Japanese brand there, and toyota is just another average sized player over there with decreasing sales recently.
The Chinese obviously know NOTHING about looking for quality cars !!!
Toyota recalls cars because unlike Japan, our lawyer/engineer ratio is a lot more skewed than theirs.
Regardless of make of plane, the only cure for a stall is increased airspeed. Pulling up on the nose NEVER increases airspeed. It reduces it...ALWAYS.
I'm not questioning why the Buffalo crash pilot didn't put the nose of the aircraft up or down, I'm just asking. Why on earth if its a given that the only cure for a stall is increased airspeed(prop planes included here) did this plane's pilot pull up on the nose of that plane?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Now, normally, you have a power or reset switch on a PC, but some kiosks and point of sale terminals simply don't have them and if it hard crashes, nothing works. Buttons, keys, mouse... nada. Only physically yanking the cord out of the outlet will turn it off. You've probably had your PC crash a few times over the years like this as well. I've also seen it happen quite frequently with CNC machines and other computer controlled machinery. The typical response is to swear a bit and cycle the power switch. Figuring out what happened is usually not possible, any more than a typical random PC crash is. You just restart and move on.
Now, if it was me, I'd start abusing the system in a car to the point where it did jam and break and see how it reacts to a worst-case scenario. Can you turn the engine off? Does the brake system work any more? My guess is that Toyota never designed it for such a scenario, as it would require a lot more time and expense that is typically put into consumer products.
No one will ever know for sure. But keep in mind that they were on final approach in foggy conditions, so they probably did not have a view of the ground. Pushing the stick down to gain airspeed only works if your have enough altitude to gain back that airspeed without flying into the ground.
There's a term for that also, Controlled Flight Into Terrain, (CFIT), or something like that.
Anyone who has driven for a few years knows that if a car engine ever starts racing out of control, it can't move the car if the car is in neutral.
I would think the order of action for most would be:
1. slam on the brake
2. try to pull up the gas pedal
3. turn off the key
4. change your underwear
5. put car in neutral