Korean 777 Down in SFO

Where was that weather (Spike posted?)

The pilots were saying they were fighting to line up with the runway "laterally," not that they can't handle crosswind landings or nothing.
 
mikea said:
Where was that weather (Spike posted?)

The pilots were saying they were fighting to line up with the runway "laterally," not that they can't handle crosswind landings or nothing.
Click to expand...


I thought the reported weather was 6 kts right down the runway..:dunno:
 
It doesn't sound like crosswind was a factor, but for whatever reason, I think I heard that they had drifted off center and were somewhat distracted by dealing with that.
 
Palmpilot said:
It doesn't sound like crosswind was a factor, but for whatever reason, I think I heard that they had drifted off center and were somewhat distracted by dealing with that.
Click to expand...

They drifted off center because they had NO clue how to fly a visual approach by hand..:mad::nonod::mad2::mad2::(

Friggin idiotic three stooges....
 
I think it is too convenient to ascribe this accident to the incompetent fools flying the plane. We have four experienced pilots with loads of hours under there belts, having flown successfully in certainly worse conditions that those that the crash occurred in(which seem to be about as benign as you can get), and between them the still could not land the plane successfully. I just feel something is missing here, and I do not know what it is.

Then again maybe their luck just ran out.
 
You may have hit it on the head:

* Loads of experience
* Landed in far worse conditions
* 2 pilots monitoring

Complacency may have been a critical link in the accident chain
 
Palmpilot said:
This link, posted earlier in the thread, shows the initial debris trail was in the right hand half of the runway. The plane apparently veered to the left once the ground loop started.

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/R..._GM1E9770NWQ01_RTRMADP_3_USA-CRASH-ASIANA.JPG

See also the second photo in this post:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1201798&postcount=56
Click to expand...

Correct. But the port side engine went off the right ride of the runway. The animation showed it going off the left side of the runway.
 
douglas393 said:
I think it is too convenient to ascribe this accident to the incompetent fools flying the plane. We have four experienced pilots with loads of hours under there belts, having flown successfully in certainly worse conditions that those that the crash occurred in(which seem to be about as benign as you can get), and between them the still could not land the plane successfully. I just feel something is missing here, and I do not know what it is.

Then again maybe their luck just ran out.
Click to expand...

If they find out that something was wrong with the auto throttles, maybe some of us will be red-faced. On the other hand, I assume that airline pilots are taught to monitor the airspeed even when the auto throttles are set to take care of it. :dunno:
 
Palmpilot said:
If they find out that something was wrong with the auto throttles, maybe some of us will be red-faced. On the other hand, I assume that airline pilots are taught to monitor the airspeed even when the auto throttles are set to take care of it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Nope. That doesn't get them off the hook. Greg pointed out...

Auto throttles don't negate your responsibility to put your hand on them -- to make sure they're working -- and secondarily shove Mr. Misbehaving Throttles to where they need to be, if they're not.

At least in a Boeing product...
 
Having set up similar situations during training and seen almost identical results, I'll always believe that the immediate problem was a breakdown of CRM. Or maybe they just weren't worth a shlt. Time will tell.

douglas393 said:
I think it is too convenient to ascribe this accident to the incompetent fools flying the plane. We have four experienced pilots with loads of hours under there belts, having flown successfully in certainly worse conditions that those that the crash occurred in(which seem to be about as benign as you can get), and between them the still could not land the plane successfully. I just feel something is missing here, and I do not know what it is.

Then again maybe their luck just ran out.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
True but...

I personally find it inexplicable how you could not know you were coming down 1,000' short of the target, in the water, no less. Not to mention the airspeed.

My first few landings in a 777 (sim) were at San Francisco. The airplane is a very honest-flying machine. I don't remember having any trouble handling it even though I am used to something orders of magnitude smaller.
Click to expand...

douglas393 said:
I think it is too convenient to ascribe this accident to the incompetent fools flying the plane. We have four experienced pilots with loads of hours under there belts, having flown successfully in certainly worse conditions that those that the crash occurred in(which seem to be about as benign as you can get), and between them the still could not land the plane successfully. I just feel something is missing here, and I do not know what it is.
Click to expand...
Despite the fact this was p--s poor flying, these guys were surely capable of doing this landing 99 times out of 100 (minor understatement). This stuff is not rocket science when done without 'distractions'.
wabower said:
Having set up similar situations during training and seen almost identical results, I'll always believe that the immediate problem was a breakdown of CRM.
Click to expand...
Ah, yeah.
 
Palmpilot said:
If they find out that something was wrong with the auto throttles, maybe some of us will be red-faced.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Like I said earlier in this thread. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming there was a problem with the A/T, these guys still screwed the pooch on this one.....and I'll throw in that is true even if the PF was really temporarily blinded by a light.
 
The sad thing about this 100% reliance on automation is that (hand) flying airplanes is fun. If these guys don't like flying, why the heck are they pilots in the first place?
I'm a happy guy when it's my leg. I'll gladly hand fly to 18,000'. In visual conditions I choose to hand fly the approach.
Maybe the Asiana opspecs don't let them do that. I don't know. But if so
I am glad I operate in the Part 91 world.
Yes, I know I should wait for the NTSB report. But for now I believe the guys on that flight deck had their nice epaulets on their shoulders; however they sure weren't pilots.
 
Lance F said:
The sad thing about this 100% reliance on automation is that (hand) flying airplanes is fun. If these guys don't like flying, why the heck are they pilots in the first place?
Click to expand...

It is when you aren't hauling 250-ish tired, and cramped sacks of meat in the back.

A$ for the question$ on why they are pilot$, I $trongly $uggest you inve$itage thi$ and get back to u$.
 
docmirror said:
It is when you aren't hauling 250-ish tired, and cramped sacks of meat in the back.

A$ for the question$ on why they are pilot$, I $trongly $uggest you inve$itage thi$ and get back to u$.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just tired today but I don't get either point.
What difference does it make what's behind the bulkhead? Either you like to aviate or you're content pushing buttons now and then.
$ure everyone has to eat. But if money is your objective, there are many ways to make more than Asiana pay scales, whatever they are and not have to put up with all that annoying flight school stuff.
Everything I've learned about this CFIT while this well compen$ated crew ignored even their monitoring responsibilities is appalling to me, and I would hope most professional pilots.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm figuring they don't want the patch in my nose to explode. No flying, even commercially, for 6 weeks. No work for at least 12 and perhaps more. I assumed that meant no small airplanes either but I didn't ask.

Yes kids, this is why you don't want to rely on your flying income. Luckily I'm old with few commitments...
Click to expand...

Sorry to here that. Good luck to you, Mari.
 
nddons said:
Sorry to here that. Good luck to you, Mari.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the good wishes but I will be fine. I'm just bummed that I can't use this long leave of absence for anything fun. I'm not supposed to be doing anything which causes physical strain. This includes flying, even as a passenger, because of the pressure changes.
 
Everskyward said:
Thanks for the good wishes but I will be fine. I'm just bummed that I can't use this long leave of absence for anything fun. I'm not supposed to be doing anything which causes physical strain. This includes flying, even as a passenger, because of the pressure changes.
Click to expand...

We can hang out and stare at my airplane sitting in the MX hangar, waiting for parts to me made from scratch for it, if you're REALLY bored. LOL!
 
denverpilot said:
We can hang out and stare at my airplane sitting in the MX hangar, waiting for parts to me made from scratch for it, if you're REALLY bored. LOL!
Click to expand...
As long as you don't ask me to lift anything more than 10 lbs. :goofy:
 
In my opinion this also shows how pathetic the culture is at Asiana Airlines.


"Asiana Airlines says bogus pilot names report damaged its reputation"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/1...its-reputation/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Z2o4eayD

If the airline is so good and they are so concerned about their reputation and if they are so innocent, then why allegedly haven't they asked their pilots to take a drug and alcohol tests immediately after crashing a plane? Why isn't taking a drug and alcohol test required after crashing a plane where there is major damage, major injuries and or deaths? Under such circumstances, I would think drug and alcohol tests would be mandated by company policies and governing bodies.

If there's nothing to hide, why didn't the crew volunteer to take a drug and alcohol tests to clear their names by removing doubts?

In my opinion Asiana Airlines seems to be more interested in diverting blame, and covering up; then finding the truth. In my opinion the airline is damaging its own reputation.


"S. Korea sends protest letter to NTSB over plane crash probe: sources"
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/07/14/34/0302000000AEN20130714001800320F.HTML



South Korea seems to speak with forked tongue. South Korea demands more disclosure, then claims too much information is being disclosed.
 
Wow, I took a break from this thread a few days ago and now there are over 500 posts. Sorry, I have only read about half of them.

Wasn't there a thread on here a while back about Airline Pilots that relied so much on automated systems that many of them basically forgot how to fly? I remember the thread had something to do with pilots not knowing how to figure weight & balance because computers do that now. Was any of that in play for this crash?
 
No Joy said:
In my opinion this also shows how pathetic the culture is at Asiana Airlines.


"Asiana Airlines says bogus pilot names report damaged its reputation"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/1...its-reputation/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Z2o4eayD

If the airline is so good and they are so concerned about their reputation and if they are so innocent, then why allegedly haven't they asked their pilots to take a drug and alcohol tests immediately after crashing a plane? Why isn't taking a drug and alcohol test required after crashing a plane where there is major damage, major injuries and or deaths? Under such circumstances, I would think drug and alcohol tests would be mandated by company policies and governing bodies.

If there's nothing to hide, why didn't the crew volunteer to take a drug and alcohol tests to clear their names by removing doubts?

In my opinion Asiana Airlines seems to be more interested in diverting blame, and covering up; then finding the truth. In my opinion the airline is damaging its own reputation.


"S. Korea sends protest letter to NTSB over plane crash probe: sources"
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/07/14/34/0302000000AEN20130714001800320F.HTML



South Korea seems to speak with forked tongue. South Korea demands more disclosure, then claims too much information is being disclosed.
Click to expand...
They are just trying (very badly) to deal with the PR fallout over this.

Been a few commentaries by PR firms about how Asiana management has absolutely dropped the ball from the public relations aspect.

It just goes along with everything else they have thrown out:
'The A/T didn't work! I was blinded by a light......I ran out of gas! I--I had a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn't come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!
 
JOhnH said:
Wow, I took a break from this thread a few days ago and now there are over 500 posts. Sorry, I have only read about half of them.

Wasn't there a thread on here a while back about Airline Pilots that relied so much on automated systems that many of them basically forgot how to fly? I remember the thread had something to do with pilots not knowing how to figure weight & balance because computers do that now. Was any of that in play for this crash?
Click to expand...

"Airspeed is life" (yes I know it's really angle of attack) just seems so basic. You wouldn't even be allowed to solo until you understood that concept, let alone be allowed to fly a jet. And how could you not see that you were coming down 1000 feet short?
 
JOhnH said:
Wow, I took a break from this thread a few days ago and now there are over 500 posts. Sorry, I have only read about half of them.

I'm new here. I have a question: Why isn't the airspeed displayed as a number? I have a Prius and the speed is a large number. No analog, only one large speed number. Why isn't that used on the 777?
Click to expand...
 
Murray 10530 said:
JOhnH said:
Wow, I took a break from this thread a few days ago and now there are over 500 posts. Sorry, I have only read about half of them.

I'm new here. I have a question: Why isn't the airspeed displayed as a number? I have a Prius and the speed is a large number. No analog, only one large speed number. Why isn't that used on the 777?
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but except for landing, Air Speed is not really very important to me. There are a lot of other instruments that are much more important.
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
"Airspeed is life" (yes I know it's really angle of attack) just seems so basic. You wouldn't even be allowed to solo until you understood that concept, let alone be allowed to fly a jet. And how could you not see that you were coming down 1000 feet short?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, in reality they weren't coming up short until the very last moment. They only started coming short when airspeed decayed so much that the jet started mushing despite the high pitch angle. So, the touchdown spot started moving fast towards them as jet started sinking. The real fault is failing to understand that available power controls the sink rate, I would say (keeping in mind that I never flew a jet).

BTW, I've read a series of LiveJournal postings by a Russian captain who went to Florida to train on 777 (before this accident). He wrote that after they finished the course and passed the exams, their instructor gave them free time and any question they would like to ask. Reportedly, his colleague, another captain from the same company, took a challenge of a landing from a Sully-like double engine failure and managed to return the jet for landing. Supposedly 777 is a rather sweet-flying airplane with a good L/D and has redundant systems (a venturi?). So the SFO crash is just an enormously freaky accident.
link - http://letchikleha.livejournal.com/152056.html
 
Fearless Tower said:
It just goes along with everything else they have thrown out:
'The A/T didn't work!
Click to expand...

I can find no report of any of the pilots claiming that. The claim I did find was different: the PIC thought he had the auto throttle set to the desired speed. The location of the fault - the pilot or the machine - wasn't made.

I was blinded by a light......
Click to expand...
The reports I've seen said the PF got flash of light but that he also said it did not distract him. He said it was probably the sun off the water.

I ran out of gas! I--I had a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn't come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!
Click to expand...
I've said this a million times: if you come up short with facts to support your point, don't exaggerate.

 
Murray 10530 said:
JOhnH said:
Wow, I took a break from this thread a few days ago and now there are over 500 posts. Sorry, I have only read about half of them.

I'm new here. I have a question: Why isn't the airspeed displayed as a number? I have a Prius and the speed is a large number. No analog, only one large speed number. Why isn't that used on the 777?
Click to expand...

On the pilots primary flight display (PFD) along the left side, bottom to top is the speed tape. About midway up is a square that has the airspeed number in it.

You are thinking of old generation jets that used an analog airspeed indicator, you won't find one of those in a 777.
Click to expand...
 
Jim Logajan said:
I can find no report of any of the pilots claiming that. The claim I did find was different: the PIC thought he had the auto throttle set to the desired speed. The location of the fault - the pilot or the machine - wasn't made.

The reports I've seen said the PF got flash of light but that he also said it did not distract him. He said it was probably the sun off the water.

I've said this a million times: if you come up short with facts to support your point, don't exaggerate.

Click to expand...
OMG you are so wrapped up in your righteous self that you can't recognize a quote from the Blues Brothers???
 
zaitcev said:
As I understand it, in reality they weren't coming up short until the very last moment. They only started coming short when airspeed decayed so much that the jet started mushing despite the high pitch angle. So, the touchdown spot started moving fast towards them as jet started sinking. The real fault is failing to understand that available power controls the sink rate, I would say (keeping in mind that I never flew a jet).
Click to expand...
You really don't want to get that much of a sink rate going close to the ground. It isn't an LSA which responds instantly to power application. You've got a lot of momentum going in the wrong direction. Even if the pilot was inexperienced in 777s he should have known that since he had flown 747s.

zaitcev said:
BTW, I've read a series of LiveJournal postings by a Russian captain who went to Florida to train on 777 (before this accident). He wrote that after they finished the course and passed the exams, their instructor gave them free time and any question they would like to ask. Reportedly, his colleague, another captain from the same company, took a challenge of a landing from a Sully-like double engine failure and managed to return the jet for landing. Supposedly 777 is a rather sweet-flying airplane with a good L/D and has redundant systems (a venturi?). So the SFO crash is just an enormously freaky accident.
link - http://letchikleha.livejournal.com/152056.html
Click to expand...
Haha, that's in Russian. I should take it to the neighbor who watches the SF condo. Nice woman but she was at first surprised when I told her I was a pilot, then relieved that the other pilot is a male. :rofl: :dunno:
 
Fearless Tower said:
'The A/T didn't work! I was blinded by a light......I ran out of gas! I--I had a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn't come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!!!
Click to expand...

Hmmmm...where's Bruce (the OTHER famous Bruce) when you need him?

"Blinded by the light... the glideslope was goosed, with the runway out of sight...Blinded by the light... the autothrottle went down, but it never went up, it was Boeing's fault, all right...."

Ron Wanttaja
 
Fearless Tower said:
OMG you are so wrapped up in your righteous self that you can't recognize a quote from the Blues Brothers???
Click to expand...

Eh? I take it you didn't follow the Youtube link I included.

Not only that - I also included what I thought was an obvious self-parody when I wrote the sentence "I've said this a million times...."

I hope my mistake wasn't over-estimating how carefully people read my posts. I always thought posting emoticons to indicate humor was the equivalent of a TV laugh-track. The mark of poor writing.
 
cross posted from the Ho Lee Fuk thread:

The over-reaction, once again, has resulted from an utter lack of people wanting to actually address the reality of an ATP hamburgering an approach. It is much easier to make a big deal about Ho Lee Fuk or Sum Ting Wong and carry-on about racism or law suits etc etc etc.

It does not matter that:
a) the ILS was off
b) the glideslope was missing
c) the computer was off
d) the autothrottle was misprogrammed
e) any one of 1000 excuses we have heard -

The fact remains that a pilot type-rated in multiple heavy transport aircraft screwed up an approach for whatever reason. Multiple rated pilots failed to notice and speak up about an airplane too low and too slow and headed for certain doom. It seems like the explanation is that they started out high and he intentionally created a high sink rate low speed condition in order to adjust the approach and for some reason forgot about it - and came up short.

You want to know a key reason for this accident? One that will get missed completely by the press and only looked at with a pale eye by everyone else?

Proficiency. Real world pilot proficiency in actually FLYING an airplane. Think AF447. Again.

Lets say you get 1100 hours a year as a pilot for an Trans Pac, Trans-Atlantic or do NYC/DC/MIA to South America - You have 10 hours legs. You get 4 trips a month about. That is 8 take offs and landings for that crew per month. Thus - you get 4 take offs and 4 landings a month.

You take off using A/T and once you get the gear up you go to AP. You stay in AP, changing headings and courses using the AP because you HAVE TO, and then program the approach to hit the STAR altitudes and speeds and arrive at the FAF solely in relation to the autopilot. Period.

You may, in one of those monthly approaches, actually do a visual approach to landing and not merely click off the AP when you reach the threshold and 'land' the airplane with the autobrakes on and the spoilers on auto deploy . . . .

Sorry - you get 100 hours a month and you get ZERO real proficiency in anything except button pushing and knob turning. I dare say that the average airline pilot flying transoceanic routes probably feels anxiety at the thought of a true visual approach. Not the Southwest guy, or the pilot who gets 16 days of flying in a month with 6 legs a day, or the freight dog who flies 22 days a month in all sorts of weather - I'm talking the aviator who last did that type of flying before the GPS satellites were even launched.

Now I know I'm gonna get 100 flames from guys who will disagree with that - but - explain to us then how you maintain proficiency? You might have 10,000 landings but when 9500 of them were 6 years or more ago . . . . explain to us how you have maintained proficiency in the visual approach and energy management of a 250,000# airplane to a 9000' runway . . . . when you only do it 10 times a year from only 6 miles out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top