Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFO and their notorious ATC instructed 'slam dunk' visual approaches from downwind have resulted in so many incidents at our airline that it is a regular item in recurent simulator training.
Throw in the lack of visual or electronic glideslope guidance and the holes are lined up.
Throw in the lack of visual or electronic glideslope guidance and the holes are lined up.
I would agree that as a professional pilot we should of course be more than capable of rising to the challenge of such an ATC imposed "slam dunk" approach - however please consider these factors that could all conspire to affect pilot performance
>a long 10 to 12 hour flight
>middle of the night body clock time
>to an airport that you may be not so familiar with (long haul pilot roster - you may only visit the destination once in two or three years)
>a slam dunk procedure that would be a challenge at the best of times (I bet even the short-haul/ domestic colleagues get it "not quite right" on occasions.
For what it's worth - I am of the opinion that slam dunk approaches for "Heavy" jets like the B777 these have no place at a major international airports.
In a "heavy" jet it's always (in my experience) a challenge to "get down & slow down" and become stabilised on this particular approach at SFO - something that sometimes ATC fail to appreciate.
Throw into the mix this runway allegedly not having any functioning ILS or even visual vertical reference guidance system - then it all adds to the possibility of "an accident waiting to happen."
Unfortunately first impressions regarding the Asiana B777 tend to point toward something awry in the handling of the aircraft (that horrible phrase "pilot error")
However - I will be watching and listening with interest to see what the FAA/NTSB have to say about these ATC procedures onto 28L & 28R at SFO.
Last edited by Ranmore; 7th Jul 2013 at 09:40.
Does anyone know how accurate the FlightAware data is and where it actually comes from? The last two data points for the accident aircraft have very slow speeds of 109 and 85 knots. Although the altitude still reads as one or two hundred feet I'm wondering if the aircraft was actually on the ground at that point and was sliding to a stop, or if they were airborne and stalling, or if the data just isn't good enough to be drawing any conclusions from it at all.
The data on FlightAware will have come from one (or both) of two possible sources.
One is FAA radar data, via ASDI, though that's fairly coarse data and I don't see how speeds that precise could have been resolved from a radar feed.
The second is ADS-B data which, depending on the aircraft fit, is likely to be both considerably more accurate and have better time resolution.
BUT, with ADS-B the caveats are:
Speed will almost certainly be groundspeed rather than TAS/IAS and so without knowing the wind on the nose should be used with caution.
Altitude is relative to QNE (in other words it's effectively a flight level, even below the transition altitude) so you would need to know the local QNH at the time of the accident to derive height AMSL or AGL.
Originally Posted by dsc810
Passenger with any sense will indeed take their hand/carry on bags if this is at all possible in the circumstances. ......
Yup, I'd take my stuff as well
Yup, I'd take my stuff as well
First of all, I DO understand this statements on the point of view of passengers usually not involed in aviation. They usually take their "precious" items in carry on because they are exactly scared of loosing them in checked bags. Or in an accident like this. Neither does a policy of LCC's charging for checked in baggage help this situation!
Secondly, it is not unknown that people do react totally unreasonable in such extreme situations. People tend to set their priorities totally wrong and that is why we do get unnecessary victims at accidents, fires and other incidents. We won't be much able to change that. Cabin crews only have a limited amount of power over this as well. In an evac, they will tell anyone to leave their stuff and enforce it where possible, yet, if someone with a bag turns up at the slide, what can you do? Stop the flow and wrestle the bag of the guy or just throw him out with it?
Here, the media COULD help after an accident like that. Instead of babbling wild theories, they could show the problems and make it clear that anyone who does that WILL endanger the rest of the passengers. They might even point out in this instance that baggage in the hold has a better chance of "survival" than in the cabin (from these pics here...). Yes, sometimes you need unreasonable arguments in order to bring across the essential.
My practice since long has been to have my papers, passport, cards e.t.c on my person, in a pocket from where they can't fall in a hurry. I usually carry my phone in the same pocket. I also have a very flat strap bag which holds tablet, tickets and so on next to me and which I can carry under my jacket (which I am usually wearing for take off and landing). This way, the problem with papers and immediate stuff won't arise. And I would not be tempted to dig in the overhead bin either.
We here who are aviation folks should simply not forget that passengers usually are not the likes of us who KNOW the risks and problems. They will try to safeguard their possessions and it is against their instincts not to do so, particularly if they can't see any direct danger and are shell shocked.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
For all those espousing the benefits/rights/convenience of taking your possessions with you, might I suggest you do a bit of research about "flashover" fires? Perhaps this might educate you a little on the risks of delaying an evacuation and why some of the Professionals on here are getting so vociferous about it. 
The modern travelling public seem to have a "I know best attitude" hence the inattention to the safety demo, mobile phones going on as you rollout on the runway, standing up whilst taxiing in etc etc.
Please, for you own sakes and those around you just be a bit more adult - it might just save your life.
The modern travelling public seem to have a "I know best attitude" hence the inattention to the safety demo, mobile phones going on as you rollout on the runway, standing up whilst taxiing in etc etc.
Please, for you own sakes and those around you just be a bit more adult - it might just save your life.
Last edited by A4; 7th Jul 2013 at 09:41.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On2it
I'm appalled at the racist comments in this thread several of which blame the crash on 'Asian' pilots.
If generalised racist comments about Asians are valid then entirely 'valid' observations can be made about Americans and Australians.
I'm appalled at the racist comments in this thread several of which blame the crash on 'Asian' pilots.
If generalised racist comments about Asians are valid then entirely 'valid' observations can be made about Americans and Australians.
Right on cue, here comes the liberal apologist. Welcome, On2it, what took you so long? But sorry, we know your game, On2it, because we have had 15 years of this tripe, but it ain't going to work no more. We have become immune.
What you want to do here is close down honest debate and deny the truth, because the truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it, On2it. Sorry, matey, but we will not take that tripe any more. We need the truth, if we are to achieve genuine flight safety.
And the truth is, On2it, that not all cultures in this world are the same. Can you handle that, On2it? Or are you going to deny the truth and deny reality? I can see you now, with your fingers in your ears, screaming: 'la,la, la, I cannot hear you.'
And the reality of human life means that in some cultures:
Only the rich and influential become pilots, because the profession is expensive and has glamour.
But rich and influential sons do not always want to become pilots.
So some rich and influential sons scrape through the course doing the absolute bare minimum.
And some of these rich and influential sons should not have been given command of bicycle, let alone a wide-body.
But they are pushed through the course anyway.
Because his father is rich and powerful, and the instructor want to keep his job.
So the instructor holds his breath, and awards him his wings.
And these same rich and influential sons then spend the whole flight chatting up the prettiest hostess and posing for photos (with open neck and shades), rather than taking the job seriously.
And you fly behind these guys sometimes.
Welcome to the real world, On2it.
Last edited by silverstrata; 7th Jul 2013 at 09:48.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be quicker to allow some passengers to take their bag . Telling them to leave their bag behind would increase the time to evacuate with the ensuing arguments or feigned no understand look .
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First image I have seen of what appears to be the "missing "engine
If the engine was on full power as the aircraft 'touched down', then it would tend to shoot forward under its own thrust, as it detaches. This is probably what happened here.
but I think that those of us who are completely honest with ourselves and fly modern aircraft like the 777 and the Airbus would admit that scanning the engine indications has almost dropped out of the scan pattern and that speed is perhaps not as well scanned as it should be.
Are you pilots or amoebas?
And if you need an iphone app to work out altitude versus distance; Go back to flight school. Seriously. This is really important.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asian pilots
Correct Silver. Some people groups, like Asian and Arab are notorious for having favourite sons (not daughters) shuffled through training and onto the line. The low competence levels exist in about 20-25% of locals, which is 20-25% too many for safety. Africa can be worse. These people end up with commands, which is when things become dangerous. This system does not function in Westernized nations.
(You can exclude the Japs from this generalization but a whole host of ME and Far East companies spring to mind. Just ask any Western trainer and you will learn this.)
This is not a racist comment; distinguishing different groups of people by their abilities or lack of is not racism. Air safety should never be politically correct.
(You can exclude the Japs from this generalization but a whole host of ME and Far East companies spring to mind. Just ask any Western trainer and you will learn this.)
This is not a racist comment; distinguishing different groups of people by their abilities or lack of is not racism. Air safety should never be politically correct.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ ASRAAM
Excellent post. The QAR should be able to give first data on A/T settings and actual thrust produced. The FDR and CVR would, if indeed that is the case, support that theory as well as the statement from the flight crew.
As far as flight training and procedures are concerned, our profession has changed from flying the aircraft as pilots to flying the aircraft as system administrators. This inherent and latent danger will become clearer over the coming years and hasn’t just started with this or the AF447 flight.
For the investigation of this accident, it would also be of interest if the crew, however augmented, originated from Shanghai or took the flight at Incheon and what their FDTL and FTL were.
As far as flight training and procedures are concerned, our profession has changed from flying the aircraft as pilots to flying the aircraft as system administrators. This inherent and latent danger will become clearer over the coming years and hasn’t just started with this or the AF447 flight.
For the investigation of this accident, it would also be of interest if the crew, however augmented, originated from Shanghai or took the flight at Incheon and what their FDTL and FTL were.
Last edited by N380UA; 7th Jul 2013 at 09:56.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the other big issues with pax taking their baggage would be the risk of damage to the slides possibly resulting in slide deflating. Not to mention heavy baggage hitting people at the bottom of the slides and generally slowing down the evacuation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uplinker:
What ? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! For goodness sake scan the instruments people !! Are you pilots or amoebas?
And if you need an iphone app to work out altitude versus distance; Go back to flight school. Seriously. This is really important.
What ? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! For goodness sake scan the instruments people !! Are you pilots or amoebas?
And if you need an iphone app to work out altitude versus distance; Go back to flight school. Seriously. This is really important.
Be careful what you are promoting, Uplinker. It is comments like this that have new f/os playing with the FMC at 200' on final approach (visual or otherwise).
This was a visual approach. The big picture is outside, and not in the cockpit. At most you need a quick glance at the airspeed every 10 seconds or so, that's all. The NFP should be making a call out of 'on profile' or not. And we all trust the NFP, don't we?
Remember power and attitude? A stable aircraft on profile will remain, well, stable and on profile. And if you cannot feel an engine rollback or a windshear change through the seat of your pants, well perhaps you are one of those who should have gone into the bicycle courier business.
Last edited by silverstrata; 7th Jul 2013 at 10:10.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Does anyone know how accurate the FlightAware data is and where it actually comes from? The last two data points for the accident aircraft have very slow speeds of 109 and 85 knots. Although the altitude still reads as one or two hundred feet I'm wondering if the aircraft was actually on the ground at that point and was sliding to a stop, or if they were airborne and stalling, or if the data just isn't good enough to be drawing any conclusions from it at all.
How accurate? The answer is, in all likelihood, not very.
The data on FlightAware will have come from one (or both) of two possible sources.
One is FAA radar data, via ASDI, though that's fairly coarse data and I don't see how speeds that precise could have been resolved from a radar feed.
The second is ADS-B data which, depending on the aircraft fit, is likely to be both considerably more accurate and have better time resolution.
BUT, with ADS-B the caveats are:
Speed will almost certainly be groundspeed rather than TAS/IAS and so without knowing the wind on the nose should be used with caution.
Altitude is relative to QNE (in other words it's effectively a flight level, even below the transition altitude) so you would need to know the local QNH at the time of the accident to derive height AMSL or AGL.
Does anyone know how accurate the FlightAware data is and where it actually comes from? The last two data points for the accident aircraft have very slow speeds of 109 and 85 knots. Although the altitude still reads as one or two hundred feet I'm wondering if the aircraft was actually on the ground at that point and was sliding to a stop, or if they were airborne and stalling, or if the data just isn't good enough to be drawing any conclusions from it at all.
How accurate? The answer is, in all likelihood, not very.
The data on FlightAware will have come from one (or both) of two possible sources.
One is FAA radar data, via ASDI, though that's fairly coarse data and I don't see how speeds that precise could have been resolved from a radar feed.
The second is ADS-B data which, depending on the aircraft fit, is likely to be both considerably more accurate and have better time resolution.
BUT, with ADS-B the caveats are:
Speed will almost certainly be groundspeed rather than TAS/IAS and so without knowing the wind on the nose should be used with caution.
Altitude is relative to QNE (in other words it's effectively a flight level, even below the transition altitude) so you would need to know the local QNH at the time of the accident to derive height AMSL or AGL.
At time of accident (1900Z):
Wind 210/07
QNH 1009.
Speed showing almost correct, altimeter a little on the high side.
The appraoch track and last three positions are here:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e47bckfnefp9hgs/eU7Tw_WfBM
It appears after what's a normal south traffic pattern 105 kts right before the runway threshold is very slow, also 123 kts on the previous position is slow. The last position is the wreckage.
Reminds me of the Amsterdam TK 737 crash, when autothrottle disengagement went undetected.
Interesting bit on the safety culture at KAL.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: dubai
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus and Boeing need to grapple with the problem of poor handling skills v autopilot usage.
From the mid 1980's ever since the A320 was introduced, there has been a slow but steady reduction in manual flying skills as the manufacturers focused on the capacity of automatic flight control systems.
Various accidents have highlighted just how important these manual handling skills are, and also that there is currently no flight control system that can guarantee this accident today and others previously can be 100% avoided. Add cultural elements into the mix and pretty obviously there is a real problem.
Until such failsafe systems are available (or even pilotless passenger aircraft), we need to go back to basics and teach people to fly again.
A visual approach is a visual approach, PROVIDED one has been trained how to fly it!
From the mid 1980's ever since the A320 was introduced, there has been a slow but steady reduction in manual flying skills as the manufacturers focused on the capacity of automatic flight control systems.
Various accidents have highlighted just how important these manual handling skills are, and also that there is currently no flight control system that can guarantee this accident today and others previously can be 100% avoided. Add cultural elements into the mix and pretty obviously there is a real problem.
Until such failsafe systems are available (or even pilotless passenger aircraft), we need to go back to basics and teach people to fly again.
A visual approach is a visual approach, PROVIDED one has been trained how to fly it!
Last edited by Rashid Bacon; 7th Jul 2013 at 10:05.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HEA
Looking at some of the speculation, a high energy approach would have been a particular threat on this occasion. I see a lot of people complaining that modern pilots can't fly the aeroplane manually anymore, but there is a lot more involved other than just disconnecting the autopilot and flight directors and flying visually to the runway.
In a 300T jet careful energy management is very important, and visual approaches need prior planning. If ATC request a short notice visual approach, and you haven't planned for it (i.e. your too high and fast) then pilots should not be accepting such requests. ATC should be working for pilots not the other way around.
A second option would be to accept the request, but state the number of miles required to touch down.
Thirdly, if it all goes wrong and you can't get the aeroplane stablised by the landing "gate", then its a missed approach and everyone lives to fight another day.
Lets wait for the report from the NTSB and try and learn from this event.
In a 300T jet careful energy management is very important, and visual approaches need prior planning. If ATC request a short notice visual approach, and you haven't planned for it (i.e. your too high and fast) then pilots should not be accepting such requests. ATC should be working for pilots not the other way around.
A second option would be to accept the request, but state the number of miles required to touch down.
Thirdly, if it all goes wrong and you can't get the aeroplane stablised by the landing "gate", then its a missed approach and everyone lives to fight another day.
Lets wait for the report from the NTSB and try and learn from this event.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royhudd:
Air safety should never be politically correct.
Air safety should never be politically correct.
Finally some sensible sentence after 20 pages of utter
Well said Royhudd. More succinct than my post, so well said.
And well seconded, De Facto - we need to nip these liberal fantasists in the bud. Remember that denying that there is a difference between cultures is a racist position, and so there is nothing quite as racist as someone who screams 'racism'.
Last edited by silverstrata; 7th Jul 2013 at 10:06.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: YBBN
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ThreeMiles
"It appears after what's a normal south traffic pattern 105 kts right before the runway threshold is very slow, also 123 kts on the previous position is slow. The last position is the wreckage."
Actually, no, that is not the last position. It's quite a way back from there.
Actually, no, that is not the last position. It's quite a way back from there.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
@Eclan
I'm alarmed that you think most pilots, and you apparently, don't know about "flashover" - were they asleep in the SEP Training? What have I said that indicates I'm "panicked" about anything outside the box? Seriously.
I'm alarmed that you think most pilots, and you apparently, don't know about "flashover" - were they asleep in the SEP Training? What have I said that indicates I'm "panicked" about anything outside the box? Seriously.