PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Jul 2013, 20:58   #1241 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 4,223
This is the part that gets me, each time I read it. I've seen various versions of this in this thread, and it makes me uncomfortable.
Quote:
One can only imagine the confusion in the cockpit as they approached the water and the thrust levers were at idle, then raise the nose to try and stretch the glide, and then at the last minute manually advancing the thrust levers.
The bolded part is what I don't "get."

I was taught that you use power to stay on (or addjust to) glide slope, pitch to stay on (or adkust for) airspeed when making an approach to land. (Of course, the two work together to give you the performance you are trying to achieve. )

I was also taught that if you are low/slow on approach to landing, pulling the nose up "to get to the runway" makes your problems worse if that is all you do.

If automation and its helpful features has taught (inadvertently?) many pilots now current in various aircraft that you fly the plane by using one hand (stick), then it's a wonder more planes don't crash more often.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Jul 2013 at 21:00.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 20:59   #1242 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazz Hands
Can't claim I know how it was sourced, but it looks more frequent than one-minute intervals. Very misleading, too, especially the bit about the rapid drop.
My mistake about one-minute intervals. I had previously thought the most granular information one could get from FlightAware was one-minute intervals but I was mistaken.

Here's the original source of that graphic:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...nt.html?ref=us

Here's the FlightAware data:

Flight Track Log ? AAR214 ? 06-Jul-2013 ? RKSI / ICN - KSFO ? FlightAware

Interestingly, there's no breakdown in "seconds"... it's assumed by whoever assembled the graphic, that if there are 5 track points at 2:27, they're equally spaced and likely 12 seconds apart each. I would guess that's a dangerous assumption.
MikeNYC is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:02   #1243 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
Has anyone heard or noticed if the final approach was to the original runway designated, and/or ATC changed designated runway for final?

Edit: In reference to the descent profile, I would not use flight aware data. This may or may not be from other ADSB sources.

Last edited by UAVop; 9th Jul 2013 at 21:06.
UAVop is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:07   #1244 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 903
Am I right in thinking that the most commonly-quoted reasons for retention of pilots, despite advances in automation, are that only a human can think flexibly enough to react to any unforeseen circumstance, and that only a human can continue to fly the aircraft when critical elements of automation fail? If I'm right then it follows that a pilot must have as his/her sine qua non the ability to fly (and land) the aeroplane with degraded systems, possibly in poor weather, possibly with no availability of external navigation aids, possibly with communication failures, etc etc. If these are not the first and foremost requirements, then why retain pilots at all? If 'lack of ILS' or 'elected to fly a visual approach' are even cited as contributory factors in this accident, is the piloting profession moving itself a step closer to oblivion? The human beings at the front end have to be capable of safely hand-flying the aircraft with the minimum of external assistance, which implies training and then regular proper practice (not just taking manual control of a stabilised approach on short finals) , or they will in time come to be viewed as surplus to requirements.

Last edited by Easy Street; 9th Jul 2013 at 21:09.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:21   #1245 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 61
Posts: 970
Quote:
The A/T servo on 777 is considerably lighter than that of 747 and 737, if you happen to rest your hand on it during idle operation, the servo can have a hard time erecting the lever back up.
The throttles on all Boeing North airplanes have the same force requirements to move - about 2.5 lbs force at the knob. In fact, with the exception of the 787, they all use minor variations on the same friction device for throttle 'feel'. Naturally, the 747 requires twice the force to move all the throttles since it has twice as many throttles to move. The autothrottle servo has plenty of force margin to move the throttles, its the friction devices that slip - as designed - to allow manual override of the A/T. The throttle quadrant on the 747-8 is unchanged from the 747-400.

That's roughly half the force that was required on the pre-FADEC throttle cabled engines - typically about 4.5 lbs at the knob (sometimes as high as 6 lbs.).

Boeing airplanes automatically select 'approach' idle when flaps are 25 or greater. By regulation, it must take less than 8 seconds to go from approach idle to 95% of max GA thrust (in actuality it's more like 5-6 seconds). I'm not a pilot, but I've been in the flight deck for a number of flight test go-around maneuvers (typically selected at 250 AGL) - 744, 748, 757, 767, and 777. I've never seen us lose more than 50 ft after TOGA was selected. The flight test airplanes are typically pretty light, but Asiana would have been fairly light since they'd burned most of the fuel on a 10 hr flight.
tdracer is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:45   #1246 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gate_15L
Age: 42
Posts: 107
Thanks Mic Dundee

Great post Mic. Your post is one of the true gems of insight in one of the casual factors that make up this accident, out of the last 60 pages of waffle and uninformed amateur ego driven "analysis".

Your experience somewhat mirrors what I've been reading elsewhere on PPRuNe for months prior about working for Korean carriers.
Gate_15L is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:47   #1247 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 4,223
TD:

FWIW, if the go arounds during test were made "on speed" (or near to proper approach speed for a given day) it would be quite a different result than if one is 10, 20, or 30 knots slow when the Go Around command/action is initiated.

I suspect some interesting sim sessions could be made showing a go around decision late, low and slow, versus "in a timely fashion" for the benefit of pilots wondering how long it takes to go from falling near the ground to getting away from the ground if the Go Around decision is delayed, or too late.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:50   #1248 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
td, what about the 'spool up' required on final?

Yes LW, the GA in the sim, or even when flight testing, rely on a 'fling' effect, being at or above speed, not below speed.

Last edited by UAVop; 9th Jul 2013 at 21:53.
UAVop is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:52   #1249 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: currently unsure
Posts: 13
Easy Street:

Quote:
Am I right in thinking that the most commonly-quoted reasons for retention of pilots, despite advances in automation, are that only a human can think flexibly enough to react to any unforeseen circumstance, and that only a human can continue to fly the aircraft when critical elements of automation fail?
Yes you are right in thinking this and on many, many occasions this fact has been demonstrated. Its just that you never read about them because the outcome is that the aircraft lands at an airport (maybe not the intended one) and everyone goes home.

What is being said about the absence of the G/S is that it removed a safety barrier. Put it another way, if you consider the (fictitious) predicate:

An accident is likely if the crew are not that skilled in visual approaches AND are new on type AND there are CRM issues AND the PM is distracted AND a steep descent is required to get on the glidepath AND vertical guidance is not available.

If any condition is removed the accident becomes significantly less likely.

Note: this is a gross simplification, just to illustrate a point
wasthatit is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:56   #1250 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South East Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 2,313
Quote:
framer says:
Quote:
"So what do we need to change about the environment they were operating in? If you can answer that question you actually make an impact on flight safety rather than just on your own ego."
...ensure that pilots can actually fly 100% manually, and have no aversion in disconnecting A/P & A/T at any time to maintain desired flight path profile.
Exactly Glueball, exactly.
So now try and convince the people running the Airlines ( accountants, lawyers etc) that we must increase our type rating sims from 6 sessions to 12 and that we must allow our pilots to fly manually on the line and that our recurrent sim sessions must involve hand flown visual approaches and circuits. Good luck.
framer is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 21:57   #1251 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
Interesting, FD off left, On right
Flaps 30

and autothrottles ON....
UAVop is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:00   #1252 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,994
Quote:
and autothrottles ON....
didn't she say the autothrottles were ARMED?
Airbubba is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:05   #1253 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 513
This may have been posted already, but the student CA was most previously on the A320. Boeing vs Airbus A/T issue?
ImbracableCrunk is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:09   #1254 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
didn't she say the autothrottles were ARMED?
Yes, she did say they were ARMED, not on.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:15   #1255 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
NTSB: PM in right seat (training captain) saw four reds on PAPI and noticed low airspeed, assumed A/T would maintain speed.
Machaca is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:24   #1256 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Not clear if Foreign ops crews are subject to drug /alcohol tests

from my SLF point of view, this seems bizarre.

If the plane is in the US, the crew should be subject to the same post crash checks as a US based crew.

I don't recall any road users getting exemptions after crashing a company car, just cos their company was based elsewhere.

Odd. The US gets to throw it's weight around on so many things, and yet in this which would seem to be a no brainer, it's not clear?

Not that I suspect alcohol or drugs were a factor in this case, but I think it's a loophole that needs fixing.
ExitRow is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:29   #1257 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 230
Interesting that she also made a point of saying that the "Instructor Pilot" (PNF) asserted that he was the PIC. However it is clear that the PF had longer service (years) with Asiana (so was in some sense more senior) but was the only one of the three that didnt come to Asiana through an Korean Airforce route - he did his training in Florida (so in some senses was less regarded presumably).

Interesting in that they are exploring the relationships between the three flight deck crew.

Last edited by Pinkman; 9th Jul 2013 at 22:50.
Pinkman is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:32   #1258 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
JamesGV:
Quote:
Pilot in the left seat had 9700 hours of total flight time
Fixed it for you.
Machaca is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:32   #1259 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Thanks NZ, I assume there were 2 pilots landing the plane in the cockpit, and 4 in total on board somewhere. All I'm saying is that in Korea, South or North, you go with the majority view and are not encouraged to make decisions, outside of consensus, even if consensus is incorrect. Similar in many regions north of Australia. ps Olympus Corporation Scandal is a prime example in Japan. It mostly works for them as a society but where individual decisions are needed as in this crash, it all falls down.
garpal gumnut is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2013, 22:35   #1260 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6
Too high?

To my understanding and interpretation of the NTSB today the pilots refused a drug and acohol test.
tmny is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 22:41.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1