Originally Posted by Olasek
Your calculations are seriously OFF, it was calcuted before, it is not 1540 but 1740 instead, this is how high you would be crossing the bridge shooting the ordinary ILS to 28L, so at 1900 you are only 160 ft higher, nothing that even a rookie commercial pilot could not handle. From the bridge it is 5.4 nm to the touchdown zone and the GS is at 3 deg. and the trigonometry is very easy. Also the Asiana 777 crew was nowhere near 1900' when crossing the bridge, they were at about 2400' so the system did not 'set them up', if there was any 'set up' here it was of their own making. Also your assumption about stability at 1000 ft is wrong, in VMC you can get stable as far down as 500 feet. Lets dispell any myth that this was a difficult approach, comparing with what's out there in the world of aviation it doesn't even qualify as a moderately difficult approach.
Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. The ILS was off. PAPI is 2.85°. I said 1540, Auberon says 1619 (thanks). Not your 1740. This thread is not about Asiana, it's about EVA. And finally, what is the
real stabilised policy for EVA?
We used to do that when we suspected the natives were less than friendly...
The hair dryers on the swinebat didn't put out enough heat to get shot at, be them at full power or idle...
Letter to editor in the Aug 5-12 issue of Aviation Week. Sounds like he might belong to Prune.
One would have to suspect the original article? After all, if such an esteemed publication could be so lead astray as to come up with this about Asiana and FLCH on the 22nd:
One group of pilots has concluded this based on intimate knowledge of the 777-200ER's automation systems; the other by flying scenarios in a 777 simulator
one should question whether they actually know what is going on.
That "intimate knowledge" was on Prune within a day or two of the prang!
