Asiana 777 crash at KSFO
 

Asiana just crashed a 777 at San Fran!

We are all are wishing the very best for the pax and crew of this accident...but, just wait for it...all of the 777/"widebodied" heroes are sleeping now. When they awake from their slumber, we'll all be bombarded with their "knowledgeable" assessment of what occurred.
Us normal people involved in aviation wish only the best to the pax and crew of this flight...and hope that as many souls as possible were saved.

EK 225 diverted to SEA. The company thinks they are going to take off in 90 mins. Asiana wreckage is still on the runway and will be for another 2 days.
Captains discretion at its worst.

Did this flight divert back into DXB this morning?

Cerbus,

"Let he who hath no sin...."

f.

Witnesses reported seeing the plane abnormally nose high. Passengers reported feeling a distinct shuddering before impact and, for what its worth, flight aware reported airspeed of 85 knots at 200 feet. I hope that last one is a mistake.

Any similarities with the Ba 38 accident at Lhr airport back to 2008 ?

It sounds to me it has more in common with the Turkish 737 crash at AMS than than BA38- details of the approach parameters are on the main thread in Rumours and News- speed allowed to decay late in the approach- 85kts at 120'!!

Sounding to me like no Auto-throttle and a lack of ability to fly without it.

I think Wiz may be on the mark. I also think FLVLCH and 'Hold' on the FMA is a reasonable chance........

I don't like to speculate on causes of a crash until the preliminary fndings or substantial evidence is present.

However, there is a lot of discussion on other threads about the 'threat' of the Autothrottle potentially having no wake-up mode when using FLCH or V/S on a visual approach using the autopilot.

Is it just me who finds the idea of using V/S or FLCH in the last 500' of a visual approach absurd? Would any posters on here really do this?

What happened to reverting the most appropriate level of automation? For me A/P and F/Ds off with the PMs back on and fly the airplane. Seemed to work in the past.:ok:

Yeah we wouldn't want any speculation on a website with "Rumour Network" in its title, would we.

ILS 28L GP is Notam-ed U/S for the period.

Methinks they armed the APP instead of LOC, either accidentally or intentionally, and followed an either non-existent or falsely transmitting G/S. Then when they looked around and realized that perhaps being at 10ft radio altitude at 400 metres from the threshold wasn't the best plan, found it too late to recover.

Would be very interested in the cultural makeup of the crew.

I for one do so at every opportunity- I think it's a big hole in the AFDS logic of the aircraft.

It is included in the type course, but not sufficiently emphasized nor recurrently trained IMHO.

Not having a go at you, Mr GC, but this is a good example of the fact that knowledge of the AFDS is lacking in otherwise competent guys, and yes, that is a failing of the training department and needs addressing.

A/T wake up IS available in V/S, as the A/T is in SPD mode.

The times it is not available is when the A/T is in HOLD, which is a few seconds after the thrust is at idle in FLCH and VNAV SPD.

As to use of those modes on approach, you really have to spend some time with an Asian carrier to get a grasp of what dependence on Automation is really like.

SFO Crash....meet phase 6.

Without speculating as to the cause of this accident those of us who were brought up on types like B707 and B737-200 had a good scan which we never lost even when we went on to the likes of Airbus A340 or B777.

Those of us operating for UK Charter outfits doing visuals came second nature into places like Iraklion, Kos, Corfu at night and places like Samos, Mikonos, Funchal etc during the day

We had to hand fly those approaches with no Autothrust. The only time I used Autothrust on a manual approach was into Kai Tak on B767 whilst in the turn onto R/W 13.

I noticed when in SQ that F/O's would never do a visual into say Bali when I suggested it in to R/W 27 to save time even with all the gizmos of extended C/L and with an ILS as a back up and as for taking out the autothrust they would never do that even though radar send you downwind on the F/O's side so runway in sight all the time.

The modern breed of computer nerds entering the flight deck is a cause for concern and the worrying lack of airmanship is all too evident.

If FLCH were selected with a go-around altitude or otherwise set in the MCP, wouldn't the airplane commence a climb to that level? (ala 767)

The modern breed of computer nerds entering the flight deck is a cause for concern and the worrying lack of airmanship is all too evident.

Very true Millers...however this maybe brought on in part by airlines' hammering crews for even the slightest instability on an approach, so they tend to just "get 'er down, lock on the automatics, and drag 'er in"...especially at the end of a long duty

Aw bless, its good to see they woke up.

The Don

The fact that some airlines have to bring their crews into the simulator in order to have them conduct manual handling exercises, speaks volumes !

Just had a listen to the NTSB admin lady give out the details of the CVR and FDR. It would appear that they lost airspeed, failed to recover that airspeed, called to GA, and then impacted shortly after.
Engines were responding normally, the aircraft was configured normally, the crew accepted a visual approach.
I know what I think most likely happened.
I wonder if the crew flew with their hands on the thrust levers? I wonder if the crew ever operated into airports with NDB's and VOR's, I wonder if the crew had any GA experience? I wonder, I wonder, I wonder...
I then think to myself, how many guys do I fly with who would struggle to maintain S/L without a FD or AT.
Be careful out there people, and remember we fly a big C172, it does all the same things.

Here's a video that was on CNN
 

Sky quoting Asiana saying the pilot only had 43 hours on type and was training.

San Francisco Plane Crash: Pilot Was Training

Terrible, just terrible, I feel for the lives changed in all this:-(

I only now hope that a thorough report is made in a timely manor so we can all learn from these sorts of accidents so the couple of young & innocent lives lost won't be in vain. In Gods hands they live on.

Wmk2

ya, right. wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his mercy.
if the plane crashed and the girls died was his will to start with, right?

tz

Looks like one of the girls that died was actually run over by one of the response vehicles - if so then for an accident of this magnitude to cause only one death is a remarkable tribute to the design of the 777.

The fact that a perfectly healthy 777 can allow itself to stall is an interesting design feature, and the fact that it crashed on a beautiful VFR day is a remarkable statement about the Asiana training department and airline culture. Sounds eerily familiar.

Pilot Error Eyed in San Francisco Plane Crash - WSJ.com

I'm not a huge believer of a hereafter as such but if these two girls had to go ( by the hands of others) then I hope at least they are somewhere peaceful.
Religion may not be everyone's cup of tea but if it is for some then I would respect that.

Vis App, clear day, with two qualified pilots up front, who was minding the 'shop'? To let a transport Cat A/C especially of this size get slow (& low) means someone wasn't minding the counter.
Out of all the sophisticated instruments, the amazing capabilities of today's modern A/C the intense training it still only takes a human to destroy all that hard work not to mention the lives lost b4 them learning the hard way.

To me the single most important instrument under these conditions is the 'speedo', that single inst tells a LOT about the health of a plane in any stage of flight especially low to the ground.

Wmk2

Only the FAA can satisfy your frustration ... the majority of other civilian organizations have demonstrate to be very wick ...

Zohan - well said. A crutch for the intellectually weak.

Four pilots on an 11 hr flight, wonder how long the layover is. I've done close to that through the night in winter with only two of us.

As a perverse knock on to this, and I take no joy in saying it, there will be more jobs available in Asiana if the NTSB cites cockpit culture as a factor. With their experience with Guam & KAL they may well have a jaundiced view.

f.

....not again...
 

LR3
In no way should this be construed as an attempt to lay the majority of blame anywhere else then the flight deck but have a think about how you feel at 5am, landing after your third night turn in a week.Missing radio calls,forgetting if you have been cleared to land, wondering if you have sat the crew down 10 seconds after you just did it.

LR3 and all of that before touch down...I just heard (rumors Network again) that an A380 skipper was demoted for turning into the wrong taxiway and having had to be tagged out...

Non Zero - Only the FAA can satisfy your frustration ... the majority of other civilian organizations have demonstrate to be very wick ...
Non Zero I Agree...unfortunately...

Old King Coal
The fact that some airlines have to bring their crews into the simulator in order to have them conduct manual handling exercises, speaks volumes !

yes it does...it's called being proactive not reactive...but I agree in the fact that what brought us here is too much reliance in automation and luck of piston/turboprop/GA or even 737/320 rural ops exposure...much more valuable exposure than being a HF/CPDLC operator for hours and ending up with 3 landings per month if lucky and that in usually good weather with an ILS....

Ynot

The difference here is 4 pilots for a 10 hour flight vs 2 pilots for a 10 hour flight at Emirates, at times.
EK has been extremely lucky and with the conditions they put us under it is just a matter of time.
Good luck to us all.

for sure swanie, but of course its our fault because we are not allowed to fly if we are fatigued.

Years of Long Range flying is beyond fatiguing !!

I think it shortens your lifespan and kills healthy brain cells :}

Yes it is ... I propose a pay raise for all the brain damaged pilots ...

Another reason to have the UAE cadets spend 5 years at flydubai--get the hands and feet moving actually FLYING an airplane.

Trader: Hear, hear, and what a novel idea, i.e. jet pilots actually flying the f'ing aeroplane... maybe it'll catch on ?!

Ps. in flydubai we're not so anal as to actually poo-poo the idea of flying the aeroplane (i.e. without recourse to engaging the f'ing autopilot at the earliest opportunity) and indeed manual / hands-on-the-yolk & throttles flying is actively encouraged (albeit within the provisos of workload, Wx, & RVSM requirements, etc) and therein we're not required to visit the sim, on a regular basis (like some), for 'manual handling' practice!

DEC policy check - Another interesting knock on effect is the 'actuarial' factor.

We were told a number of years ago in wash-up that one of the factors behind DECs was that the Actuaries were concerned with the overall flight hour number of the upgrading FOs.

One of the first things the insurance industry does in the aftermath of an incident such as this is to have a mass scramble and reassess the algorithms. If you have seen the'CNN video that shows the approach and subsequent crash - you can see that the corkscrew at the end got very close to a flip....in which case...game over.

So now AIG, Zurich Re, Lloyd's will make a polite call to Dubai with the following question:

Actuary:
"You guys don't have guys in the LHS with 43 hours on type do you? I mean obviously in their previous gig they flew heavies from the left?"

Dubai:
"Actually Mr actuary, we have guys in the LHS that have less than 43 who didn't fly anything bigger than a 737 before we put them there...But it's all good, we saved money on training"

Actuary:
"Ah thats great thanks and just to clear things up, one more pertinent question...you guys don't run 11 hour flights with less than four pilots right?"

Dubai
"Huh? next question"

Actuary
"Okeedokee , lemme call you guys back in five"

5mins later.

Actuary:
"Yo..it's me again...I guess the good news for my insurance co. Is that at least you don't have these, whadya call em DECs, jumping into the LHS of the 380. I mean all the guys who upgrade are high on Airbus 380 time right?"

Dubai:
"Hmm, not excactly...but we save money in training by putting the 777 guys on the 380"

Watch this space...we've been saying it for years... Bypassing seniority and experience is a big wise invitation to Karma to come a knocking.....disgraceful.

Got spin?..,work it habibi

f.

f

So what's the overriding factor, experience or seniority? You appear to contradict yourself in that last post.

Let me re phrase your question. Who would be better qualified to fly a 777 (hypothetically speaking), a 5 year Captain transitioning off A380 who's only flown Airbus throughout their career or a B777 FO with 4 years in Company and 7 years previous command and all Boeing time? Experience can be difficult to judge and individual ability should never be related to aircraft size.That's what the final command sign off is for..... either you're safe, or you're not.

At the end of the day it matters bugger all what size airplane you fly, 500 passengers, 350 or 2. The investigation is the same regardless of lives lost!

So what about those Captains and FOs with zero hours on the 380 and 787? When those pilots started flying on them surely it was the blind leading the blind. So far so good no pilot related incidents, infact pilots on these aircraft have had to deal with all the teething problems.

This whole Asiana crash must be down to training and SOPs. Do Asiana have their on 777 sim? What is the difference between their training and say EK's? I cannot believe that the crew on that flight could not visually see they were well below the glidescope.

Oh well lets see what 'Terror in the skies' or 'Aircrash investigation' make of it

Well we definitely mastered the way we calculate Seniority but how do you measure Experience? Someone on the big thread in R&N said 9000 time 1 hour doesn't mean 9000 hours flight experience?


Changing platform from LHS to LHS and from Heavy to Heavy shouldn't be a big deal also if you change the aircraft philosophy.
But upgrading a RHS medium platform to heavy LHS new philosophy platform can be challenging. Not impossible but you definitely introduce more variable with more chances of failure.

BYMOMEK,

the point is that if the policy is there because of a new type A380/787 and obviously there are not qual'd guys then fine...the training program on a new type will be tailored as such.

But this $ saving racket of having guys who are sitting in the RHS of the 777 - who because the DEC recruitment was stopped at the time they joined - are now sitting beside guys from FR in the LHS who have less experience than them on the 738 never mind thre years on the 777...that's silly....actually it's greed.

On the 380 side we have FOs with perfect record who are going into their 7th year on the Bus - who because of FCI - are now waiting even longer ....just as a Capt junior to him from a different type now gets his slot.

We know that there is no pure seniority here because cross typing costs the union majors lots.
But the DEC is a $ issue ....the cost of which when it goes wrong is hard to calculate.

Point taken on proper training ...if you are signed off ...you are signed off BUT we have all done things after sign off that have been less than stellar where experience would have helped.

Separate point...if fatigue is a factor...how are we gong to look with crews doing 30 hours on board with 22 hours at hotel in DC if they determine it was a factor?

f.