Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These photos shows no initial fire damage to the top of the fuselage. Fire probably spread to the cabin walls and ceiling after fire from the right engine penetrated the fuselage on the right side.
These photos shows how the fire likely originated in the area where the right engine lay beside the fuselage after it broke off the wing.
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 7th Jul 2013 at 03:56.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The AUK
Age: 80
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's airline training teaches pilots everything except HOW TO FLY THE
AIRPLANE.
AIRPLANE.
Time for some Organisations to stop enforcing the 60 or 65 age limit (on those who are still on top of their game, and whose expertise they sorely need) in an effort to maintain the competency, experience, and safe helmsmanship which their fare paying passengers are entitled to??
Regards to all the full bottles out there who have a proven record of doing it as it should be done.
Last edited by The Big E; 8th Jul 2013 at 01:12.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have first hand accounts of professional pilots stating what they observed when they worked at Asiana and in Korea. It is evident there is a widespread deficiency among Korean crews (definitely not the only ones who suffer from this) to conduct proper visual approaches and landings.
Now take that pre-existing factor and add it to what would be a perfectly standard approach on a CAVOK day for a competent crew, take away the ILS GS, the VGSI, and suddenly these guys are left clueless.
No doubt the final report will indicate a clear point at which any other competent crew would have initiated a go-around due to the stabilized approach criteria not being met.
Hopefully they will learn sooner than later.
Now take that pre-existing factor and add it to what would be a perfectly standard approach on a CAVOK day for a competent crew, take away the ILS GS, the VGSI, and suddenly these guys are left clueless.
No doubt the final report will indicate a clear point at which any other competent crew would have initiated a go-around due to the stabilized approach criteria not being met.
Hopefully they will learn sooner than later.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective as to whether it contributed to this accident in any way, it's outrageous that an airport the size of KSFO has no electronic or visual G/S.
Temporary VASIS or PAPIS can't have been that expensive until R/W works were complete.
Temporary VASIS or PAPIS can't have been that expensive until R/W works were complete.
These operations are rigorously tested in the simulator every six months, any pilot falling short of acceptable standards is sent for retraining, in the event said aviator still comes up short, s/he is immediately, and without remorse of any kind, shown to the nearest hole in the wall.
Most call it the door. It is pretty bleak on the other side.
No more of this nonsense please.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reality
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective as to whether it contributed to this accident in any way, it's outrageous that an airport the size of KSFO has no electronic or visual G/S.
Temporary VASIS or PAPIS can't have been that expensive until R/W works were complete.
Temporary VASIS or PAPIS can't have been that expensive until R/W works were complete.
These operations are rigorously tested in the simulator every six months, any pilot falling short of acceptable standards is sent for retraining, in the event said aviator still comes up short, s/he is immediately, and without remorse of any kind, shown to the nearest hole in the wall.
Most call it the door. It is pretty bleak on the other side.
No more of this nonsense please.
incredible. I've been flying in and out of SFO on a regular basis, and their 28's G/S's and PAPI's have been OTS for a while (don't know why?), but who cares when it's CAVOK? Just Programme your own glide path (VNAV, HGS, etc.) and keep a visual scan, inside, then outside, etc.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: australia
Age: 70
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't care how many hours you have chalked up 'YOU WERE NOT THERE" !!!!to make such disparaging comments re the flight crew without any knowledge of what has just occurred is beyond me.Why not wait like everybody else to get the facts instead of being a bunch of smart arses prior to knowing the facts,just like you would wish if you had been involved in such an event.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turns out that a friend of mine was on this flight. He is basically ok. Here's a Facebook post from his wife, who apparently changed her own flight to an earlier one:
Ben is alive @ sf general hospital. Thank u god from the bottom of my heart. My kids need their loving dad who i am so proud!!! Ben was sitting next to the exit door. Seat # 30K. opened the exit door and help 50+ ppl out wz broken ribs from the crash. He calmed ppl down n helped to get them out before too late. Ppl were injured, bleeding n screaming. Flight attendances were overwhelmed n Ben did best to help other passengers. He thought the plane was so low when he saw the water n runway was too closed and the pilot put the gas it was too late. Plz forward this posting to let the news channels. So they know what exactly happened. (I supposed to flight back with him in the same flight then changed to the earlier flight. From now on I will travel in different flights.)
Ben is alive @ sf general hospital. Thank u god from the bottom of my heart. My kids need their loving dad who i am so proud!!! Ben was sitting next to the exit door. Seat # 30K. opened the exit door and help 50+ ppl out wz broken ribs from the crash. He calmed ppl down n helped to get them out before too late. Ppl were injured, bleeding n screaming. Flight attendances were overwhelmed n Ben did best to help other passengers. He thought the plane was so low when he saw the water n runway was too closed and the pilot put the gas it was too late. Plz forward this posting to let the news channels. So they know what exactly happened. (I supposed to flight back with him in the same flight then changed to the earlier flight. From now on I will travel in different flights.)
Last edited by Mark in CA; 7th Jul 2013 at 04:06.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those of you saying the pilots would not be used to visual approaches how are you backing this up? I ask this with total amazement because isn't it a basic rule of flight to be able to fly visually? I know it is to me.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big aeroplanes, legacy carriers and Asian airlines..the triage does nothing to encourage visually flown approaches. Infact, a visual approach is anathema to the firm I work for and on the 777 fleet, rarely flown either for real or in the sim..due "threat"..wtf!!! For the kids doing right seat conversions to type, an end of sim VMC, no vasi, no ILS approach, under..lets just have a go and no test threat...is a real eye opener!! Flying schools, or at least flying school precursors for the airlines do not engender a culture of visual and manual flying. Low energy conditions, stall incipients etc are all covered by modules and the insurance of protections by the myriad of auto systems. Mix that with the barrier culture of Asian "face" and the risk of incident is increased immeasurably. The CVR will be an interesting if not indicting piece of evidence in MHO....
It's worth noting that there are RNAV (GPS) approaches published for both 28L and 28R that have 200' AGL minima for aircraft with LPV capability.
I'm not familiar with the 777, but it perplexes me why the crew would not have elected to fly a coupled RNAV (GPS) approach if the ILS was NOTAMed off the air.
Mic Dundee,
It would seem your son in law is not doing a very good job of instructing if he sends these chaps home unable to "think out of the box" or show some airmanship . Perhaps they need to use another flight training school.
It would seem your son in law is not doing a very good job of instructing if he sends these chaps home unable to "think out of the box" or show some airmanship . Perhaps they need to use another flight training school.
PaperTiger, Post #264
Re,
If I may, there is a definite veridicality between various data sources. PPRuNe makes no pretentions to be other than advertised. There is no "data" here. Flightaware provides "data" but does not indicate for the user anywhere what the data is based upon, and neither does AvHerald. I've seen time errors in Flightaware and wrong reporting in AvHerald. Doesn't mean they're to be dismissed, but it does mean that they must be taken with a grain of salt.
I do flight data analysis and know that images and videos created from "data" have both the power to easily convince a credulous and information-seeking audience but can also be significantly in error and can draw parties to incorrect conclusions. Now in the end it doesn't really matter because the NTSB Report will eventually be written. But in the early hours of such events I think it is wise to greet all information as suspect because it is.
Those who fly the aircraft and who otherwise know this business first-hand generally speculate wisely but, as we see here, the thread is already more than a dozen pages of kapok, as is usual for industry events such as this. But that's okay too - it's "as advertised", but can't be taken as anything more than it is. Once in a while a gem shows up from someone who quietly knows his or her stuff but it takes an eye to avoid the general throng to capture the truth.
I happen to believe that this is nothing more than a visual approach gone wrong. I've done hundreds of them into SFO on various types, Quiet Bridge from the east, usually and it's a great amount of fun, generally but one must know more than just relying upon ILS. We'll see what the NTSB has to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ2
I would be very cautious about anything Flightaware and AVHerald have to offer at this point.
One might say the same about PPRuNe, no?
Those two sources seem to be doing a better job than many of the "official" sites and ALL of the media.
Originally Posted by PJ2
I would be very cautious about anything Flightaware and AVHerald have to offer at this point.
One might say the same about PPRuNe, no?
Those two sources seem to be doing a better job than many of the "official" sites and ALL of the media.
I do flight data analysis and know that images and videos created from "data" have both the power to easily convince a credulous and information-seeking audience but can also be significantly in error and can draw parties to incorrect conclusions. Now in the end it doesn't really matter because the NTSB Report will eventually be written. But in the early hours of such events I think it is wise to greet all information as suspect because it is.
Those who fly the aircraft and who otherwise know this business first-hand generally speculate wisely but, as we see here, the thread is already more than a dozen pages of kapok, as is usual for industry events such as this. But that's okay too - it's "as advertised", but can't be taken as anything more than it is. Once in a while a gem shows up from someone who quietly knows his or her stuff but it takes an eye to avoid the general throng to capture the truth.
I happen to believe that this is nothing more than a visual approach gone wrong. I've done hundreds of them into SFO on various types, Quiet Bridge from the east, usually and it's a great amount of fun, generally but one must know more than just relying upon ILS. We'll see what the NTSB has to say.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircarver - looking at the 777 floor plan, there are two crew seats with telephones aft of row 67 but in front of the galley. I presume the violently detatched tail section included these two seats and hence the crewmembers. The Cog aft limit will be calculated during the investigation- this is another variable along with sink rate/ AoA, SA of loss of stable approach , training/recency/CRM "culture", lack of standard vertical guidance cues, fatigue, and all the other possible factors raised above.
Last edited by Mimpe; 7th Jul 2013 at 04:36.
I`m wondering , what part of an EGPWS Warning WHOOP WHOOP PULL UP ! wouldn`t they have heard or understood with such reported sink rates below 1000`? Must have been lots of bells and whistles going off for the CVR Analysts to sink their teeth into.