Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the hand luggage, pax will always try to take it off with them.
On BA38 they did as well
Caught on camera: Last moments of Flight BA38's dramatic descent into Heathrow | Mail Online
You can see the guy coming out door 2R he has hand luggage
On BA38 they did as well
Caught on camera: Last moments of Flight BA38's dramatic descent into Heathrow | Mail Online
You can see the guy coming out door 2R he has hand luggage
I departed SFO a few hours before this tragic accident in a heavy jet.
Our approach to SFO was 'interesting' to say the least. It was the usual, over the field and downwind at 11000 ft, full speedbrake and lots of flap to get down before the inevitable early turn to base.
Cleared for a visual on 28L maintaining own separation from an A320 joining visually on 28R.
High ROD to catch up with the ideal vertical approach path while turning final while watching the other jet.
28L LOC transmitting so followed that, back to Vref+5 early to avoid overtaking the A320 on 28R but end up alongside.
Below 1000ft the (local) A320 flying visually on the right wanders off the centreline towards us. TCAS TA goes bananas but RA inhibited below 800ft. We quickly discuss going around before he corrects back towards his centreline. Look forwards to see four whites on the PAPI's (I had been concentrating looking right at the VERY close A320 for approx 10 secs).
Reduce thrust, set 1000ft ROD, regain profile by 200ft, flare and touch down.
All this after a ten hour flight when it's past 4am on my body clock. How nice it would have been to fly a nice lazy ILS instead.
It's an accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Our approach to SFO was 'interesting' to say the least. It was the usual, over the field and downwind at 11000 ft, full speedbrake and lots of flap to get down before the inevitable early turn to base.
Cleared for a visual on 28L maintaining own separation from an A320 joining visually on 28R.
High ROD to catch up with the ideal vertical approach path while turning final while watching the other jet.
28L LOC transmitting so followed that, back to Vref+5 early to avoid overtaking the A320 on 28R but end up alongside.
Below 1000ft the (local) A320 flying visually on the right wanders off the centreline towards us. TCAS TA goes bananas but RA inhibited below 800ft. We quickly discuss going around before he corrects back towards his centreline. Look forwards to see four whites on the PAPI's (I had been concentrating looking right at the VERY close A320 for approx 10 secs).
Reduce thrust, set 1000ft ROD, regain profile by 200ft, flare and touch down.
All this after a ten hour flight when it's past 4am on my body clock. How nice it would have been to fly a nice lazy ILS instead.
It's an accident waiting to happen, and it did.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RDR seems to think or rather justify
Sorry RDR, I'm not a Microsoft pilot. I've got 38 years experience ranging from open cockpit to the highly automated Boeings. Yes... long haul back side of the clock flying too. I've never managed to land short, long, or at the wrong airport. Can you say "Situational Awareness?" I've executed a few go-arounds in my day when I was not comfortable with the approach, be it IMC or VMC. Bottom line RDR one needs to rely on their basic airmanship rather than automation... wouldn't you agree? That said RDR, your comments don't lend a valid defense. Perhaps a Microsoft pilot or even a child of the magenta line (green line for Airbus) may see it differently.
Wrong choice of words.
Its obvious that you are a "little Fokker pilot" flying 6 sector days, 10X5.
Think out of your box to guys who are in the bin through the nite for 11 hrs.
Then in the morning sun, having to shoot an approach with no profile guidance. And guess what its their 2nd leg in 2 weeks.
SFO is darned stupid to notam their way to shutting down multiple aids, leaving a foreign crew, who probably last came to their field 4 months ago, barely able to speak English, the luxury of a visual approach.
If this is not asking for it, you can have the cheese, and eat it.
Think out of your box to guys who are in the bin through the nite for 11 hrs.
Then in the morning sun, having to shoot an approach with no profile guidance. And guess what its their 2nd leg in 2 weeks.
SFO is darned stupid to notam their way to shutting down multiple aids, leaving a foreign crew, who probably last came to their field 4 months ago, barely able to speak English, the luxury of a visual approach.
If this is not asking for it, you can have the cheese, and eat it.
Compared to the necessary accident?
Last edited by captjns; 7th Jul 2013 at 13:32.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR24 FA
For reasons I don't understand, the FlightAware data quotes height at 100' intervals, despite the fact that the aircraft is sending it in 25' increments.
FR24 in the LAX area is not very well implemented and the F5M feeder is five minutes delay so I guess FA relies on FR24 or PF. The feeder near KOAK might also have a coverage issue in this sector.
At least we know that the aircraft maintained 11000ft for a while. It might stop the BA38 similitude debate.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by What Traffic
I expect some more one post wonders to come on and start crying about racism. It's not about race. It's about culture.
The flight crew and five commuting pilots riding as passengers all tossed out their luggage and Christmas gifts out the window as they were evacuating a burning aircraft, endangering the lives of those behind them.
The accident was caused by a hard landing after a visual approach. The flying pilot was not a Korean but was a US female. Anyone want to risk writing about the airmenship of the female pilots they flew with here or is this kind of liberty taboo and only allowed when speaking of non-western people ?
Last edited by Montrealguy; 7th Jul 2013 at 13:55.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Setting aside the fact that the cause is as yet undetermined, but sounding off on the presumptions from the crowd.... it is more staggering that the industry has so merrily leaned so heavily on technology to provide safety in place of basic airmanship.
What can be more basic than looking outside and landing an airplane?
I completely agree that vertical guidance should definitely be available at an international airport like SFO, but come on!
What can be more basic than looking outside and landing an airplane?
I completely agree that vertical guidance should definitely be available at an international airport like SFO, but come on!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: new jersey
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say I'm shocked by the number of posters on here who think the problem comes from no ils or papi. One, you do not have to accept a visual on atc's terms. If you are too high, extend the downwind. Two, visual or not if you feel like you just don't have the skills required to fly such a fearsome maneuver, put another approach in such as the rnav and use that for guidance. I'm fairly sure nobody operates into sfo that doesn't have rnav capability. If they do operate without it, I'm sure they have the competence to fly the dreaded visual.
I think locked door and rdr have made valid points. Why people can't understand that a crew who have just crossed the Pacific might be a tad fatigued is beyond me. Of course we should be able to fly a visual approach with at least PAPIs available. Without them how can you determine if your approach is stable unless there is some form of cross check.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No where in my post do I mention that a PAPI is not a great help. it IS, and operating into a runway without one is certainly more challenging, but NOT forbidden in EASA land, at least not in daylight. At night, count me out indeed.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Rockies
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologize for posting here. I’m just an ignorant bug-smasher flying general aviation private pilot. I have no idea what it’s like to fly real planes for a living so my question may be totally ridiculous. But if I was flying into SFO and there was no ILS or PAPIs and I was assigned the 28L visual, I would load the RNAV 28L approach which has LPV precision guidance and use it as a check to make sure I was doing the right thing on the right runway. Is there some reason why you wouldn’t do the same in a 777? Frankly if given the choice, I'd rather have LPV guidance than PAPI/VASIs.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some comments from an amateur
1. Yes, any professional pilot should be able to fly a visual approach. But that's what PAPIs are there to assist. Without them, the pilot loses one of the basic aids to a visual approach.
2. The 777 airframe did a fantastic job in protecting the occupants in a high energy impact.
3. Was the high ROD approach a factor? If so, are ATC regularly expecting pilots to perform non-standard approaches (think Turkish at AMS). Just because a pilot should be capable of flying these approaches, doesn't mean they should become normal operations.
4. If the passengers felt that the aircraft had come to rest, and all seemed ok (apparently backed up by a normal arrival announcement), then I think I too might think it ok to carry off my hand luggage. It is possible that those at the front of the aircraft (and still in shock anyway) did not realise the severity of what was happening. This is going to be a useful case study in passenger behaviour following a major incident.
5. I'd be happy to fly on a 777 tomorrow...I'd be more reserved about flying with a Korean based operator.
2. The 777 airframe did a fantastic job in protecting the occupants in a high energy impact.
3. Was the high ROD approach a factor? If so, are ATC regularly expecting pilots to perform non-standard approaches (think Turkish at AMS). Just because a pilot should be capable of flying these approaches, doesn't mean they should become normal operations.
4. If the passengers felt that the aircraft had come to rest, and all seemed ok (apparently backed up by a normal arrival announcement), then I think I too might think it ok to carry off my hand luggage. It is possible that those at the front of the aircraft (and still in shock anyway) did not realise the severity of what was happening. This is going to be a useful case study in passenger behaviour following a major incident.
5. I'd be happy to fly on a 777 tomorrow...I'd be more reserved about flying with a Korean based operator.
Before "Ze Germans" get here
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: ?
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Picture, apologies if its been posted before.
BBC News - San Francisco Boeing 777 crash 'not mechanical failure'
BBC News - San Francisco Boeing 777 crash 'not mechanical failure'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBK
You cross check by having the PNF call out altitude variations at set DME distances, PF will then adjust rate of descent to keep on profile.
I suspect there may be some variation in exactly how this is done depending on the operator.
You cross check by having the PNF call out altitude variations at set DME distances, PF will then adjust rate of descent to keep on profile.
I suspect there may be some variation in exactly how this is done depending on the operator.
Last edited by skit_uk; 7th Jul 2013 at 14:02.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try and look at it another way. I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact that airline pilots should be able to cope with a visual approach with no g/s info. However, would it be safer to have functioning PAPIs at a LH international destination when conducting visual approaches? Of course. And safety is the name of the game, especially when conducting close proximity parallel approaches with variable set ups.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th Jul 2013 at 14:02.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having operated into KSFO many, many times I can point out a lot of technical issues with the airport. Flying a visual to Runway 28 left on a nice, clear day isn't one of them. Not even without any vertical guidance aids.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word about the Fedex MD10: I was there that day and have been thoroughly briefed on what happened, including the ground egress.
The fuselage was canted to the right so that the left (upwind) side slide merely curled under the fuselage. The jumpseaters thought incorrectly that it wasn't inflated. They pulled a T-handle on the slide thinking it would encourage inflation and it separated the raft from the airframe instead.
The right side door showed smoke and flame through the window so they didn't open it.
The only route of egress available was the captain's DV window. All 7 people aboard formed a line to get out. It takes a moment or two to contort oneself out a window and transfer one's weight to a strap. Thus, there was a bit of a delay. The jumpseaters, at the end of the line, decided to make themselves useful and pitched a few bags out the open L1 door.
Perhaps they got a little task-oriented, but I thought the resulting criticism was harsh. Window egress takes alot longer than a slide.
The fuselage was canted to the right so that the left (upwind) side slide merely curled under the fuselage. The jumpseaters thought incorrectly that it wasn't inflated. They pulled a T-handle on the slide thinking it would encourage inflation and it separated the raft from the airframe instead.
The right side door showed smoke and flame through the window so they didn't open it.
The only route of egress available was the captain's DV window. All 7 people aboard formed a line to get out. It takes a moment or two to contort oneself out a window and transfer one's weight to a strap. Thus, there was a bit of a delay. The jumpseaters, at the end of the line, decided to make themselves useful and pitched a few bags out the open L1 door.
Perhaps they got a little task-oriented, but I thought the resulting criticism was harsh. Window egress takes alot longer than a slide.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If some are trying to justify the fact that a heavy crew flying a visual approach into a major international airport operating a parallel runway system deserve some slack for crashing the aircraft then I'm dumbfounded. Yes there are numerous factors that may possibly be contributing, however if this is a simple case of a visual Manoueuvre in CAVOK gone tits truly up then the overriding blame stops with the two guys at the pointy end. GO the 
AROUND!!
I for one cross my fingers & hope that this isn't the case of a poorly managed approach and blatant disregard for the landing gate. The holes in said cheese will start with the fact that the crew was aware of the state of play at SFO and didn't plan for it appropriately. Yes thy might be tired, yes ATC might have tightened their track miles and yes there may have been separation concerns but ultimately its the two guys at front who are left to deal with the situation.
If this is the true cause of the accident then you can't argue that this could happen to anyone. It simply shouldn't
AROUND!! I for one cross my fingers & hope that this isn't the case of a poorly managed approach and blatant disregard for the landing gate. The holes in said cheese will start with the fact that the crew was aware of the state of play at SFO and didn't plan for it appropriately. Yes thy might be tired, yes ATC might have tightened their track miles and yes there may have been separation concerns but ultimately its the two guys at front who are left to deal with the situation.
If this is the true cause of the accident then you can't argue that this could happen to anyone. It simply shouldn't
Last edited by Callsign Kilo; 7th Jul 2013 at 14:34.