Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Asiana flight crash at San Francisco

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Asiana flight crash at San Francisco

Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:13
  #1281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I assume if there was any indication of inebriation that the police could demand a test, as opposed to some FAA regulation, correct?
Since they crashed they haven't even gone through customs yet so technically the crew is not in the country legally at that exact moment so jurisdiction would fall under the INS, not the local police. I assume processing them through customs was one of the first things that was done once the emergency health issues were straightened out.

It would an interesting question as to whether the state or federal government would assert jurisdiction if any criminal charges (such as manslaughter) were to be filed. I suspect that INS would defer to the San Fran police because of their expertise but who knows...
Which is precisely why I think it would be a good idea for it to be a mandatory across the board requirement regardless of where the air crew was based. Not only would it help eliminate a factor if they crew were clean, but it would avoid the risk of dramatic scenes and headlines if the cops felt that the responsibility fell to them to make it a criminal DUI type test. That would be seen as prejudicial to the investigation, as well as all the jurisdictional headaches and likely protests from the embassy at how it would all play out in the media.

And to reiterate, I'm not implying that these guys were stoned or drunk, just that in my opinion there's no good reason for exempting foreign based crews from the mandatory drug & alcohol checking.
ExitRow is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:15
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couple of things. When I listened to the NTSB conference today, I heard that the crew did pass drug/alcohol testing, BUT were not required to as a function of the pilot licensing. They were still required to take the test, as part of landing in the US.
My take on this was that the test did take place, and it was negative for the crew.

The autothrottles were 'selected' or 'armed', but it was not known at this time if, due to other settings, if they were 'enabled'

I'm not sure what you mean about the 'spool up' required on final.
It is my understanding that according to FOQA procedures, when on landing idle, the pilot is required to momentarily spool up the engines near minima or for balked.

Last edited by UAVop; 10th Jul 2013 at 00:21.
UAVop is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:29
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 453
Received 22 Likes on 6 Posts
Uavop,

I don't think you understand what FOQA means. There is no such thing as "FOQA procedures". Do you mean stabilized approach criteria ? One of the requirements for a stabilized approach is the fact that the engines are stable at whatever power setting is required to maintain VApp. At whatever altitude is precribed in the specific companies operational references.

Last edited by JPJP; 10th Jul 2013 at 00:31.
JPJP is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:31
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It is my understanding that according to FOQA procedures, when on landing idle, the pilot is required to momentarily spool up the engines near minima or for balked.
According to FOQA procedures?

That's a new one on me...
Airbubba is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:50
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FlightAware log

There has been much discussion of the FlightAware track logs, including the evidently erroneous approach profile published by the New York Times.



The track logs visible on the FA web site have the time stamps truncated to the minute. In the .kml files available on the FA web site the time stamps are given to the nearest second, allowing accurate plotting of the data. Evidently the NYT profile was constructed from the truncated time stamps. The NYT graphic shows a 600-foot decrease in altitude in 9 seconds. Actually the time between these data points was 26 seconds. I have plotted the approach profile below from data in the .kml file, and have added the NTSB data points. There is a discrepancy between the FA and NTSB altitudes at about 15 seconds. It appears that whatever went wrong happened in the final 15 seconds of flight, since an earlier post shows the 6 July approach was not much different than earlier ones until this point.


rer47 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:52
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NTSB: Asiana 777 commanding pilot assumed auto-throttles were maintaining speed | Safety content from ATWOnline
AdamFrisch is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:53
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SFPD Now Leads Probe Into Whether Fire Truck Ran Over Plane Crash Victim CBS San Francisco

Seeming to confirm my speculation a few posts up regarding jurisdiction the criminal investigation regarding whether one of the female victims was run over by a rescue firetruck has been handed off to the San Fran police department.
MountainBear is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 00:54
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't think that is the case. I believe she explained that under FAA regs, foreign based operators crews are not required to take the test, and her enquiries indicate that they were not tested.
And conversely, U.S. carriers cannot conduct DOT mandated drug and alcohol testing of their own crews overseas in my experience. The locals in most cases can test according to their laws though.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 01:09
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The basics

Excellent thread content, sad outcome for Asiana.

I'm not a heavy jet pilot, having spent my time in P3 and Nimrod, however I am completely puzzled by some of the comments here.

My basic training started with a final approach technique of "Aimpoint, Aspect, Airspeed". A fairly simple but critical and very effective work cycle to keep the aircraft on the rails to touch down. I used it throughout my career no matter which aircraft and still use it today. We were taught that "Speed is life and more is better" and this is essentially critical for all aircraft on the final approach. Apart for more speed not necessarily being ideal for slippery jets (I understand that nuance)

Q. Is airspeed not monitored by both pilots on final, in a modern jet airliner? Surely I am wrong........
Winged Wombat is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 01:12
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,651
Received 131 Likes on 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Lone wolf 50
I was taught that you use power to stay on (or addjust to) glide slope, pitch to stay on (or adkust for) airspeed when making an approach to land. (Of course, the two work together to give you the performance you are trying to achieve. )

I was also taught that if you are low/slow on approach to landing, pulling the nose up "to get to the runway" makes your problems worse if that is all you do.
Must be a navy pilot? I have never really come to grips with why navy guys used the secondary effects of controls to land.

Fly it like the autopilot flies an ILS. You get low on slope, you pull the nose up. Primary effect of controls. If you then get slow or know form experience that you will get slow, put the power up. As you say, pitch and power work together, but the initial reaction is to stay on-slope with the stick, then compensate (if necessary) with the power. Stick for glideslope results in much more accuracy, as well as revealing, much quicker, windshear. If you "fell into a hole" and simply pushed the power up, especially with not much deck angle, all you'd to is go faster.

This is particularly appropriate with autothrottles; all you need to do is stay on glide/visual slope with the stick and the autothrottles will automatically adjust/power-up to maintain the speed.

Confucius say (for the left-hand seater):

"Always remember and forever take heed, left hand for glidepath and right hand for speed!"

As for that Tiptoe visual approach posted by JPJP:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1307/00...TOE_VIS28L.PDF

That would some thought to put in the box, especially if not given until later in the descent or not familiar with it. 1900ft at 5nm to touch, just because of Class B airspace? Get real you lot.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 01:24
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,099
Received 69 Likes on 44 Posts
Speaking in general terms, aircraft know well in advance if they are to expect one of the charted visuals. Usually one, sometimes two frequencies prior to being cleared for it.
West Coast is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 01:51
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,071
Received 183 Likes on 113 Posts
From the Guardian article quoted earlier: A second evacuation slide inflated inwards, trapping another attendant near flames. "I grabbed a knife passengers had eaten with from a cart and handed it to the co-pilot and he punctured it," Lee said. Only later at hospital did Lee realise she had broken her tailbone...

Luckily they were not using plastic cutlery. 'Nuff said.
jolihokistix is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:03
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How much fuel on board?

The lucky video that recorded the horrific crash of Asiana's B777 was talked about much earlier in this thread. Some comments were made about the white cloud that formed part way into the event. Someone speculated that it was sea water, but to my eye it rises after the United Airlines plane drops out of sight on the right.

Is it possible that the cloud was jet fuel escaping and atomizing, and that this early dump of the remaining fuel was an enormous stroke of luck? There was much less fire than I would have expected when the plane stopped.

My interest in modern aircraft, and their rare disasters, is prompted by my experience as a software developer. The growing sense that automation is a double-edged sword is an important perception, I believe. I also have niggling feeling that "Systems problems" are a growing threat.
eswdev is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:25
  #1294 (permalink)  
Props are for boats!
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What aircraft type had the Captain been on before his training? Not that it makes a difference.
Sheep Guts is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:27
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
eswdev wrote: "Is it possible that the cloud was jet fuel escaping and atomizing, and that this early dump of the remaining fuel was an enormous stroke of luck? There was much less fire than I would have expected when the plane stopped."

Not a chance they were deliberately dumping fuel. They didn't even call for more speed until 7 seconds prior to impact, and the call for a GA happened less than 2 seconds prior to impact. And obviously they could not have jettisoned enough fuel ti a few seconds to make a difference!
RobertS975 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:41
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inadvertent dump!

By "dump" I mean accidental, a result of the engines breaking off, while pumps remained active at full output - if that is possible (e.g. from battery power). I can't think of any other reason for that white cloud. Another suggestion earlier was dust, but where would white dust come from?
eswdev is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:41
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sheep Guts
What aircraft type had the Captain been on before his training? Not that it makes a difference.
The Captain(flying pilot) in the left seat was doing his upgrade from A320 Captain to B777 Captain while the right seat Captain(non-flying pilot) was the PIC and was doing Line Indoctrination training on the pilot flying.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:49
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
white cloud = water being kicked up by the thrust of the engines. AKA: rooster tail
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:49
  #1299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Inside an airplane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is the Law.

Korean MLTM Aviation Act

Chapter X Penal Provisions

Article 156 (Offense Causing Danger in Aviation)
Any person who damages or destroys an airfield, airfield facilities or navigation safety facilities or causes any danger in aviation in any other way, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years. <Amended by Act No. 5794, Feb. 5, 1999>

Article 157 (Offense Causing Danger in Flight)
(1) Any person who crashes, overthrows or destroys an aircraft in flight, shall be punished by the death penalty, imprisonment for life or for not less than five years.
(2) Any person who crashes, overthrows or destroys the aircraft in flight in committing the offense as prescribed in Article 156, shall also be punished by the punishment as referred to in paragraph (1).
Article 158 (Crime against Death or Injury by Causing of Danger to Aircraft in Flight)
Any person who caused the death of another person or injury by committing the crime as prescribed in Article 157, shall be punished by the death penalty, or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for not less than seven years.

Article 159 (Attempted Criminal)
Any person who attempted offenses as prescribed in Articles 156 and 157 (1), shall be punished.

Article 160 (Offense against Danger Causing by Negligence in Aviation)
(1) Any person who damages or destroys by negligence an aircraft, airfield, airfield facilities or navigation safety facilities, or causes any danger in aviation by other ways, or crashes or overthrows the aircraft in flight, shall be punished by imprisonment or without prison labor for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won. <Amended by Act No. 4647, Dec. 27, 1993; Act No. 5794, Feb. 5, 1999>
(2) If a person commits the offense as referred to in paragraph (1) by any malpractice or severe negligence, he shall be punished by imprisonment or without prison labor for not more than three years, or by a fine not exceeding fifty million won.
zekeigo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2013, 02:52
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The pilot at the controls - named by Asiana as Lee Kang-Kuk - was about halfway through his training for the Boeing 777, but had led 29 flights to San Francisco on Boeing 747s in the past, according to the airline.

"To complete initial operating experience for Asiana, he's required to have 20 flights and 60 flight hours. He had completed 10 legs, and about 35 hours flying the 777," Hersman said.

However, his trainer - who told US investigators he had a total of 13,000 flying hours, 3,000 of which were in the Boeing 777 - had not flown as a trainer pilot before.


Read more: Pilot couldn't see runway before US crash | News.com.au
StormyKnight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.