Korean 777 Down in SFO

us AAirways said:
How long for the engines to spool up from flight idle to power for a go around on the 777?
Click to expand...


I'm typed in the damn thing and to be honest I'm not sure. It's not like the old straight jets, though. It's probably only a few seconds. Hang on and I can look up some info to find the answer, or at least give you and idea.


Edit:

I can't find it off hand, but somewhere we have data that shows if you are on speed (ref to ref+5) and on a 3deg glide path, if you do a go around you will lose roughly another 27' in the process before you start heading uphill.

Of course, nothing with this Asiana says they were on speed or on a normal glidepath, so who knows how much room they really needed. The engines do spool quickly, but given that they commanded a go-around 1.5sec before impact implies it was too late.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the NTSB has considered possible radioactivity interfering with the flight instruments from Godzilla coming out of the water in their investigation?
 
The latest is that one girl victim was ejected and possibly run over by one of the rescue vehicles.
 
flibmeister said:
The 777 can catch you out with with what is known as the "FLCH trap.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mean that on short final rather than pull back on the yoke or push the throttles forward the pilot is trying to reprogram the FMC.
 
Rex Kramer said:
I can't find it off hand, but somewhere we have data that shows if you are on speed (ref to ref+5) and on a 3deg glide path, if you do a go around you will lose roughly another 27' in the process before you start heading uphill.
Click to expand...

That seawall is apparently 28ft tall...
 
Rex Kramer said:
Of course, nothing with this Asiana says they were on speed or on a normal glidepath, so who knows how much room they really needed. The engines do spool quickly, but given that they commanded a go-around 1.5sec before impact implies it was too late.
Click to expand...
Definitely. Apparently, they had the stick shaker at 4seconds before impact and the GA call was at 1.5 before.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Airline now stating two important items. Captain was in training. First landing at SFO in the 777 but was crew on 747 previously.

Airline states mechanical malfunction highly unlikely.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Can't speak to Asiana, but ours have the aft galley and a row of lavatories before it gets into passenger seating. IOW there is about 10 or 15 feet of cabin aft of the last row of passenger seats.
Click to expand...

NTSB just released a photo set.

Looks like numerous seats separated from their tracks

Combining that with the pinwheeling and the centripetal forces involved; I can envision some losses out through the aft bulkhead damage.

BOmrTBwCcAARecz.jpg:large


BOjgTvtCEAIWk0-.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/NTSB/media/grid
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
Wonder how many landings he had in his 43 hrs in type?

Any bets on that being his first ever pure visual approach in type?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be a big deal, especially in VMC conditions. ILS/PAPI out or not.

My first landing in the 777 was with 285 people on board at an airport in China I had never been to before.


Of course, I say it shouldn't be a big deal, but here we are.
 
Rex Kramer said:
It shouldn't be a big deal, especially in VMC conditions. ILS/PAPI out or not.

My first landing in the 777 was with 285 people on board at an airport in China I had never been to before.


Of course, I say it shouldn't be a big deal, but here we are.
Click to expand...

As a piston guy having done an approach and landing at SFO in the 767-400 sim, I would agree that it shouldn't make a difference...but from some of the things I've been hearing about Asiana, I am starting to wonder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Just wondering. Why couldn't they have used the GPS LPV approach for 28L if they were that uncomfortable with a visual approach?
 
Steve Job said:
Just wondering. Why couldn't they have used the GPS LPV approach for 28L if they were that uncomfortable with a visual approach?
Click to expand...

Was the plane. built in 2006, equipped for GPS LPV? We see a lot of biz-jets that don't have the equipment because of the cost of upgrading the avionics.
 
I guess LPV approaches are only available in the U.S. (due to WAAS), so maybe a foreign carrier wouldn't bother with it. Hard to imagine that a lowly spam can could have a more capable avionics suite than a 777 though.
 
Steve Job said:
Just wondering. Why couldn't they have used the GPS LPV approach for 28L if they were that uncomfortable with a visual approach?
Click to expand...

Graueradler said:
Was the plane. built in 2006, equipped for GPS LPV? We see a lot of biz-jets that don't have the equipment because of the cost of upgrading the avionics.
Click to expand...

Doesnt really matter which runway they pick the triple 7 can provide gildepath indications whether there's a charted approach or not -

Go to DEP/ARR page
select the landing rnwy
Select the VFR APP prompt @ 2R
Select "Intercept Course To" @ 6R
Execute and use just like any other RNAV approach
 
Steve Job said:
Why couldn't they have used the GPS LPV approach for 28L if they were that uncomfortable with a visual approach?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a single large carrier (foreign or domestic) in the world that is certified to do LPV approaches, not to mention I don't think this aircraft was equipped for it. There are many biz jets equipped for WAAS approaches but I don't think large jet-liners are. Airlines don't want to pay for it, they see little value for them.
 
Last edited:
The fact that they were significantly below Vref on the approach tells me there were some serious inadequacies in the cockpit. Simply not good enough.
 
us AAirways said:
I remember flying right over the wreckage of the Northwest crash in Detroit 2 days after it happened.
Click to expand...

It has only been 28 hours.. Give it till tomorrow at noon and they will probably open up 28L.... But then again... maybe not..:no:
 
olasek said:
I don't think there is a single large carrier (foreign or domestic) in the world that is certified to do LPV approaches, not to mention I don't think this aircraft was equipped for it. There are many biz jets equipped for WAAS approaches but I don't think large jet-liners are. Airlines don't want to pay for it, they see little value for them.
Click to expand...

Ah might wanna guess again on that one.
 
Some real gems here.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130708/DA7D7DM80.html

Silly Reporter said:
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Seven seconds before the Boeing 777 struck down, a member of the flight crew made a call to increase the jet's lagging speed, National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman said at a briefing based on the plane's cockpit and flight data recorders. Three seconds later came a warning that the engines were about to stall.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
The call to increase speed 7 seconds before touchdown should have been a call for a go around. I can't imagine they were anywhere near Vref at that point. Obviously the pilot who made that call looked at the airspeed.

Either both pilots were severely fatigued or they have an automation dependency issue at the airline. Or both.

The article I read mentioned the PF was 43 hours (and probably only 3-4 landings) 777 time and the other pilot had 3,000+ hours in the 777. Its understandable that someone with only 43 hours in type could blow an approach like this. But my take is that either the PNF (3000hr guy) lost his situational awareness due to fatigue, or he suffered from the same automation dependency problem as the pilot flying.
 
Allegedly 7 seconds before the crash the crew told the pilot to increases speed.

Anyone know how long the PW4090 takes to spool up; from idle, to full power?

Rex Kramer said:
...The GEs, which I think is what Asiana flies....
Click to expand...
I think this one had (Pratt & Whitney) PW4090.
 
Last edited:
Knowing something about the culture, I'm going to blame lack of CRM for most of this. If the guy with the high hours in the plane sat there while the approach was blown and didn't say/do anything that fits with the CRM problem. It could also be fatigue added to that but they were a four man crew so someone should have been well rested.
 
Unfortunately it appears that this is the second crash in 5 years that can be attributed to loss of basic pilot skills (Air France 447, being the other).

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
 
It appears one or more inflatable life rafts were inflated (inadvertently) in the cabin by the impact of the crash. These life rafts pinned several people and blocked passage for many others. The passengers were frantically trying to free the pinned crew as the cabin began to fill with smoke. But no one had anything sharp to puncture the rafts with **TSA**
 
Sounds like flying pilot was still on IOE with a check airman if he only had 43 hours in type.

They had a significant departure from stablized approach criteria. And failed to make the correct professional decison to go around at the proper time. If he needed flight idle at that altitude to fix himself , the check airman should have been initiated the go around.
 
wsuffa said:
Not the first time an Asian carrier has (in the words of the Captain) "F'ed up" an approach into SFO. JAL 2 did it in 1968 & landed in the bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_2
Click to expand...

Racism. Start with a conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it. A great way to find a pattern where there is none. Landing accidents - only something "Asian" carriers do?
 
Jim Logajan said:
Racism. Start with a conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it. A great way to find a pattern where there is none. Landing accidents - only something "Asian" carriers do?
Click to expand...

LOL. Asia is a continent not a race. Get your head out of your ass and stop looking for racism where it doesn't exist.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Racism. Start with a conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it. A great way to find a pattern where there is none. Landing accidents - only something "Asian" carriers do?
Click to expand...

Figures. They can't drive either. :D
 
SkyHog said:
LOL. Asia is a continent not a race. Get your head out of your ass and stop looking for racism where it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I see - thank you for your correction. So was he pointing out useless non-information or was he indicting a land mass? If neither, what did you think he was trying to say, if not trying to be racist?
 
There are multiple serious logical problems with correlating the Asiana crash with JAL 2. The only thing that ties them together is assumptions about East Asian race.

There HAVE been racist comments in this thread, like it or not.

Not the least of which is that "Asian" is not the same as "Korean." If you think Korea and, say, Cambodia or India bear any resemblance, you're in desperate need of some introspection on the source of your assumptions.
 
Okay ultra-PC granola heads let me just impart this minuscule pearl of wisdom to you - consider that the concept of CRM ( as it is TRULY intended) does not extend itself well into all cultures. Furthermore, in the interest of aviation safety should we let any specific cultural norm impact negatively the true spirit of CRM ? Or, do you just think the other three pilots were unconscious for the approach ?
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
If neither, what did you think he was trying to say, if not trying to be racist?
Click to expand...
He was simply pointing out the reality that in some parts of this world, the culture creates some significant obstacles to good CRM. The truth will obviously come out. Right now it just provides one very possible explanation of how a professional flight crew can completely botch a visual approach with a perfectly good airplane.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Racism. Start with a conclusion and go looking for evidence to support it. A great way to find a pattern where there is none. Landing accidents - only something "Asian" carriers do?
Click to expand...

You're nuts if you think that was either the intent or background on the post. With that, I've deleted my post and I'm done here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top