Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the combination of 280'-400' above the glideslope and 43 knots above Vref is a dilemma.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture
With regard to the low airspeed warning you asked
It is a message on the Eicas screen accompanied by a brief beeper which gives two beeps and the yellow master cautions illuminate.
No it would not have been inhibited and occurs when airspeed is below manoeuvering speed but before the stick shaker activates. However it is not very loud compared to say the autopilot disconnect.
With regard to the low airspeed warning you asked
What is exactly that aural message ?
NTSB has not yet mentioned anything like it on the CVR ...
Could it be inhibited due to higher priority aural message or stick shaker ?
NTSB has not yet mentioned anything like it on the CVR ...
Could it be inhibited due to higher priority aural message or stick shaker ?
No it would not have been inhibited and occurs when airspeed is below manoeuvering speed but before the stick shaker activates. However it is not very loud compared to say the autopilot disconnect.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ross M
And neither were listening to the American PFE who saved the day by pushing the power levers up, resulting in a slight pitch up prior to touchdown at low tide (as relayed to me by himself). I love a good PFE.
Quote:
After I read so many things about a "challenging" (visual) approach for 28L at SFO I wanted to know when the last incident/accident was:
It was in 1968! with an JAL DC-8 on the ILS and hit the water 2,5 mls before the TH (quite similair to the Asiana) but without ILS.
Interesting. An uncanny similarity (Wiki excerpted):
(1) Captain Asoh was a veteran pilot with roughly 10,000 hours of flight time
(2) His first officer, Captain Joseph Hazen, had similar flight time, but little DC-8 experience.
(3) Captain Asoh attempted an automatic-coupled Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach
They were mighty lucky though (unlike our Asiana): "None of the 96 passengers or 11 crew were injured in the landing."
I only hope Asiana and the flight crew have the moral courage to use the "Asoh defence": Asoh, when asked by the NTSB about the landing, reportedly replied, "As you Americans say, I fu_ck_ed up."
After I read so many things about a "challenging" (visual) approach for 28L at SFO I wanted to know when the last incident/accident was:
It was in 1968! with an JAL DC-8 on the ILS and hit the water 2,5 mls before the TH (quite similair to the Asiana) but without ILS.
Interesting. An uncanny similarity (Wiki excerpted):
(1) Captain Asoh was a veteran pilot with roughly 10,000 hours of flight time
(2) His first officer, Captain Joseph Hazen, had similar flight time, but little DC-8 experience.
(3) Captain Asoh attempted an automatic-coupled Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach
They were mighty lucky though (unlike our Asiana): "None of the 96 passengers or 11 crew were injured in the landing."
I only hope Asiana and the flight crew have the moral courage to use the "Asoh defence": Asoh, when asked by the NTSB about the landing, reportedly replied, "As you Americans say, I fu_ck_ed up."
Quite a lot of seats seem to have failed where they attach to the floor, despite the forces being survivable?...or are they designed to break free?
Variations typically follow load patterns in a crash impact
Survivability has more to do with load patterns on the human body. Obviously variable after they break loose with or from a seat. It never implies all will survive
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brit expat in USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba
"The 160 knot landing flap limit cited by Ms. Hersman seems low to me, as discussed earlier, perhaps this is not correct."
She went to great pains to emphasize that this was information that came from the pilot interviews. Maybe Asiana has a policy of not selecting flaps until X knots below the limiting speed??? (whatever X may be), and perhaps that is what the pilots were relating to their interviewers.
What she actually said was..... "This information, again, came from the crew interviews. Approach asked them to maintain 180 kts until they were about about 5 miles out. This aircraft has a max 160 kts to put down the landing flaps for their final configuration."
"The 160 knot landing flap limit cited by Ms. Hersman seems low to me, as discussed earlier, perhaps this is not correct."
She went to great pains to emphasize that this was information that came from the pilot interviews. Maybe Asiana has a policy of not selecting flaps until X knots below the limiting speed??? (whatever X may be), and perhaps that is what the pilots were relating to their interviewers.
What she actually said was..... "This information, again, came from the crew interviews. Approach asked them to maintain 180 kts until they were about about 5 miles out. This aircraft has a max 160 kts to put down the landing flaps for their final configuration."
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inexpert Idiocy
Non-heavy jet pilots seem determined to make their point that hot and high at 4 miles is no problem for competent crews.
WRONG!!! Unstable approaches are common and need to be managed expertly and quickly. And I am given the recipe for a hot and high approach on 1 in 4 of my ops into the USA and Canada....and Mexico and the Caribbean for that matter.
Sadly the few qualified folk seem to be outnumbered by the many who do not do the job day in, day out of operating heavy jets.
In a thread like this, the noise level of self-appointed experts is high, and the practical relevance of their input is zero.
I wouldn't voice my views on cardiac surgery or mechanical engineering on a professional website unless I WAS a professional. These arrogant SOB's see themselves differently.
Wrap up please, guys or head to the Spotters forums.
WRONG!!! Unstable approaches are common and need to be managed expertly and quickly. And I am given the recipe for a hot and high approach on 1 in 4 of my ops into the USA and Canada....and Mexico and the Caribbean for that matter.
Sadly the few qualified folk seem to be outnumbered by the many who do not do the job day in, day out of operating heavy jets.
In a thread like this, the noise level of self-appointed experts is high, and the practical relevance of their input is zero.
I wouldn't voice my views on cardiac surgery or mechanical engineering on a professional website unless I WAS a professional. These arrogant SOB's see themselves differently.
Wrap up please, guys or head to the Spotters forums.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPN11,
With all due respects Sir, I never said that it was ATC's responsibility. However, ATC are instructed on aircraft performance as part of their training.
In Amercia charts are designed to TERPS specifications. Elsewhere ICAO - Then local circumstances are considered. Not the other way around.
Hence, my post never indicated ATC was to blame.
I have always held the belief, since first venturing into USA Airspace, that ATC assumes that you, as the pilot, can be at a cleared to reference point in space at an particular altitude, speed and heading - hence, they assume you know how to fly. Where as in Europe, it is very procedural for obvious reasons.
I do not want to get into a p@#sing contest here but the obvious is the obvious.
I offer the AMS ATC instruction of when you are all set up with SPY, "xxxx direct to PAM decend to xxxx'" other than the terminal chart, please indicate where PAM is annotated on any STAR, APP PLATE or SID. yes indeed it, "only works because those in the know".
Interestingly, you contradict yourself with the statement "only works because those in the know ignore 180/5 and play 180/7".
If applying airmanship is "being in the know" which you seem to allude to some secret society, I stand guilty as charged - Sir
On QUIET BRIDGE approach at the bridge it is recommended to be at 1900' but airmanship calls for a more "gentlemanly" consideration to be at 1800' then a left side-step to align with the centre-line and, how to say this politely, and a momentary increase in loss of altitude to pick up the proper "sight picture" - having disenguaged all automation prior to the BRIDGE.
Two points to keep in perspective:
Flying is NOT a science its an ART
This accident commenced to happen at 500'
With all due respects Sir, I never said that it was ATC's responsibility. However, ATC are instructed on aircraft performance as part of their training.
In Amercia charts are designed to TERPS specifications. Elsewhere ICAO - Then local circumstances are considered. Not the other way around.
Hence, my post never indicated ATC was to blame.
I have always held the belief, since first venturing into USA Airspace, that ATC assumes that you, as the pilot, can be at a cleared to reference point in space at an particular altitude, speed and heading - hence, they assume you know how to fly. Where as in Europe, it is very procedural for obvious reasons.
I do not want to get into a p@#sing contest here but the obvious is the obvious.
I offer the AMS ATC instruction of when you are all set up with SPY, "xxxx direct to PAM decend to xxxx'" other than the terminal chart, please indicate where PAM is annotated on any STAR, APP PLATE or SID. yes indeed it, "only works because those in the know".
Interestingly, you contradict yourself with the statement "only works because those in the know ignore 180/5 and play 180/7".
If applying airmanship is "being in the know" which you seem to allude to some secret society, I stand guilty as charged - Sir
On QUIET BRIDGE approach at the bridge it is recommended to be at 1900' but airmanship calls for a more "gentlemanly" consideration to be at 1800' then a left side-step to align with the centre-line and, how to say this politely, and a momentary increase in loss of altitude to pick up the proper "sight picture" - having disenguaged all automation prior to the BRIDGE.
Two points to keep in perspective:
Flying is NOT a science its an ART
This accident commenced to happen at 500'
Two points to keep in perspective:
Flying is NOT a science its an ART
Flying is NOT a science its an ART
EDIT:
OK Horatio. Have it your way.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 16th Jul 2013 at 21:45.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear!
Why don't all you armchair experts wait until the AIB conclusion? So much hot air from so many non qualified experts. Always the same with any any accident or incident; drives me crazy.
Why don't all you armchair experts wait until the AIB conclusion? So much hot air from so many non qualified experts. Always the same with any any accident or incident; drives me crazy.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50,
LMAO....
yeap - should have added, "within the laws of physics/aerodynamics"
Sorry
by the way, this was an actual instruction given to me from AMS ATC..."xxxxx direct PAM decend to xxxx, speed, as fast as you dare".
Go figure......
LMAO....
yeap - should have added, "within the laws of physics/aerodynamics"
Sorry
by the way, this was an actual instruction given to me from AMS ATC..."xxxxx direct PAM decend to xxxx, speed, as fast as you dare".
Go figure......
Last edited by FO Cokebottle; 16th Jul 2013 at 21:53.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone Wolf...my point is 115 pages of unadulterated crap, interspaced with some reasonable conjectures, but all are speculative and worth sod all until the official publication. As I said 'armchair experts'!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but all are speculative and worth sod all until the official publication
You can find the actual verbiage from Debbie Hersman's July 9, 2013 NTSB briefing here at about 15:10 in the clip:
Listened again, and indeed the 'spokesbabe' was quoted correctly then in the referenced earlier post, and, as stated, it had yet to be corroborated by the CVR. Thanks.
Concerning the 180 at 5, as an aside, looking at some of the earlier graphs provided by an apparently meticulous HITL poster, if accurate, it appears they had difficulty slowing up to 180 at 5 if it was requested.
In the opposite vein, I once took a particular aircraft into a civilian field for an airshow static display and was asked by approach to maintain 170 to the marker.
I had to reply, "Unable.....this thing won't fly that slow".
Know your aircraft.
nigegilb
"I am much more relaxed taking an "overview" on speed control with US ATC because the margins generally are not as tight"
Please don't be so relaxed. At certain airports (ORD regularly) separation can be as little as 2.5 miles.
"I am much more relaxed taking an "overview" on speed control with US ATC because the margins generally are not as tight"
Please don't be so relaxed. At certain airports (ORD regularly) separation can be as little as 2.5 miles.
RoyHudd
Bravo!!
I got slapped down for saying I thought SFO could be challenging. I'm no expert but I think I'm entitled to an opinion having been slam dunked pretty much every time I've come in from the north.
Re TIPP TOES, QUIET BRIDGE and the like - I don't think that's confirmed until you're at 11,000 approaching the field so that makes for another curve ball. Yes manageable of course, that's what we are paid for. The same goes for whether it's 28L or 28R. As NigeG said it is probably easier going left hand downwind although watch the terrain. Going downwind right hand it is very difficult to know when they will turn you onto base leg. I got it wrong once, admittedly when a fresh 'un, called for gear and flap and was then taken 20 miles downwind much to the amusement of the other chaps. Didn't stop reminding me the whole trip!
I got slapped down for saying I thought SFO could be challenging. I'm no expert but I think I'm entitled to an opinion having been slam dunked pretty much every time I've come in from the north.
Re TIPP TOES, QUIET BRIDGE and the like - I don't think that's confirmed until you're at 11,000 approaching the field so that makes for another curve ball. Yes manageable of course, that's what we are paid for. The same goes for whether it's 28L or 28R. As NigeG said it is probably easier going left hand downwind although watch the terrain. Going downwind right hand it is very difficult to know when they will turn you onto base leg. I got it wrong once, admittedly when a fresh 'un, called for gear and flap and was then taken 20 miles downwind much to the amusement of the other chaps. Didn't stop reminding me the whole trip!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this work from aa5bpilot post 1410.....
http://www.pprune.org/7933003-post1410.html
If this post is not only led by imagination but resembles some reality, then the Asiana flight was at 2250 feet at 5 miles (recommended is 1900 feet) and descended through 1900 feet not before 4 miles.
Same with speed, which was closer to 190 knots at 5 miles than the 180 requested by ATC and it slowed through 180 kts at around 3.5 miles.
As said before, one of the main tasks in the pointy front is managing energy.
If the approach has its traps (not saying that it is a fact though) concerning speed and altitude (higher than optimal), then there is no sense in adding extra speed and hight for grandma or who ever is important to you.
This Asiana flight flew a higher and faster profile than requested by ATC or as published by the VAP, the trap was self constructed.
Edit: i,m aware that the author used FA data and there is GS influence as well, but compared to the other flown profiles this aproach looks in shambles already at 5 miles.
If this post is not only led by imagination but resembles some reality, then the Asiana flight was at 2250 feet at 5 miles (recommended is 1900 feet) and descended through 1900 feet not before 4 miles.
Same with speed, which was closer to 190 knots at 5 miles than the 180 requested by ATC and it slowed through 180 kts at around 3.5 miles.
As said before, one of the main tasks in the pointy front is managing energy.
If the approach has its traps (not saying that it is a fact though) concerning speed and altitude (higher than optimal), then there is no sense in adding extra speed and hight for grandma or who ever is important to you.
This Asiana flight flew a higher and faster profile than requested by ATC or as published by the VAP, the trap was self constructed.
Edit: i,m aware that the author used FA data and there is GS influence as well, but compared to the other flown profiles this aproach looks in shambles already at 5 miles.
Last edited by RetiredF4; 16th Jul 2013 at 22:50.