Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWO flight attendants working in the back of an Asiana Airlines Flight 214 were ejected and survived when the plane slammed into a seawall and lost its tail end during a crash landing at San Francisco's airport.
Both women were found on the runway, amid debris.
Read more: Stewards ejected, unhurt in US plane crash | News.com.au
Both women were found on the runway, amid debris.
Read more: Stewards ejected, unhurt in US plane crash | News.com.au
I'd like to ask some triple 7 drivers about the cockpit airflow acoustic sound difference between 140 and 105 knots.
The main clues that things were not right would be the body angle, stick shaker and the control yoke being well back. With the FBW in normal mode, it takes a determined effort to stall a 777 as the nose-down force on the yoke is considerable: you can't trim slower than the bottom of the normal airspeed range, i.e. the top of the yellow band.
The NTSB are reporting that the P3 couldn't see the runway from the jump seat, which is something I've never experienced from that position. Certainly points towards a very high body angle.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Up North….
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the 2nd observers seat you tend to be looking out the window at the rapidly approaching runway, the LHS pilots arm is in the way of instruments, the FO seat blocks forward instrument view etc….you can see next to nothing unless your actively leaning forward and left….and I speak from experience, to do it you have to force yourself and if your tired..well… That said there was only one jumpseat occupied and it would seem strange if it wasn't the central seat so its a mute point.
With regard to noise differences between 137 and 103 kts, there probably is some but not a lot. One of the first sences to go when your overloaded or at the top of the peak arousal curve is your hearing, so I would love to say I would notice the difference but in all honesty I probably wouldn't.
With regard to noise differences between 137 and 103 kts, there probably is some but not a lot. One of the first sences to go when your overloaded or at the top of the peak arousal curve is your hearing, so I would love to say I would notice the difference but in all honesty I probably wouldn't.
Last edited by felixthecat; 10th Jul 2013 at 06:55.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question to all the critics here bagging the Asiana pilots for their poor flying skills. Does your criticism also apply to the Qantas pilots who did a pretty good job of stuffing up the landing at Bangkok in 99' ?
Golf anyone?
Golf anyone?
The big issue is for pilots trying to get it across to the airline management that flying isn't just as simple as a course advertised by a manufacturer as part of the overall cost of buying an airliner and that any idiot can do it.
Perhaps, after this, the CPs of the world may have a better chance of extracting more training dollars out of their financial masters.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. If autothrottle remains at idle instead of maintaining command speed when intercepting glidepath from above at a relatively low altitude you probably won't notice the rapid speed decay in time and will crash. Not you? Don't be so sure buddy. It happens real fast and recovery may not be possible. This is a pretty good reason not to disconnect the a/t.
2. Absolute nonsense about Korean pilots not speaking up. Maybe true 20 years ago but not today. No more than any other nationality anyway.
3. The 'FLCH trap' is not mentioned anywhere in any Boeing Manual. In 8000 hours of flying the 777, never in any sim in two major airlines has any instructor, Alteon, Boeing or company mentioned or demonstrated it to me. The best you could say is perhaps it could be inferred by what is not stated.
4. It is SOP in my last two airlines for the PM's Flight Director switch to be turned back on after turning off both Flight Directors for a visual approach (assuming they do not provide useful guidance).
5. On the 777 it is recommended autothrottle always used on approach unlike other types. That is SOP regardless of differing opinions and yes, it does eventually result in loss of that 'muscle memory'. Thats the way it is these days, thats how airliners are designed and its just reality.
6. At the end of the day a very experienced crew crashed an aircraft they were concentrating on flying. Sure they weren't quite stabilised blah blah but there's more to it. If there is a latent trap in the autoflight system I want to know about it so it doesn't bite me in the arse on that one time when I'm not quite on top of my game.
2. Absolute nonsense about Korean pilots not speaking up. Maybe true 20 years ago but not today. No more than any other nationality anyway.
3. The 'FLCH trap' is not mentioned anywhere in any Boeing Manual. In 8000 hours of flying the 777, never in any sim in two major airlines has any instructor, Alteon, Boeing or company mentioned or demonstrated it to me. The best you could say is perhaps it could be inferred by what is not stated.
4. It is SOP in my last two airlines for the PM's Flight Director switch to be turned back on after turning off both Flight Directors for a visual approach (assuming they do not provide useful guidance).
5. On the 777 it is recommended autothrottle always used on approach unlike other types. That is SOP regardless of differing opinions and yes, it does eventually result in loss of that 'muscle memory'. Thats the way it is these days, thats how airliners are designed and its just reality.
6. At the end of the day a very experienced crew crashed an aircraft they were concentrating on flying. Sure they weren't quite stabilised blah blah but there's more to it. If there is a latent trap in the autoflight system I want to know about it so it doesn't bite me in the arse on that one time when I'm not quite on top of my game.
Last edited by HPSOV L; 10th Jul 2013 at 07:26. Reason: brevity
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amos2
Yes, they were both accidents, they have that in common.
QF - Night, windy, wet, landed.
Vs
OZ - Day, dry, calm, hit seawall about 30kts below Vref.
I was trying to think of a way of describing in motoring terms, to my family, the standard of negligence displayed in this accident.
How about driving along a straight bit of a steep 2000ft high mountain road while looking under the seat for that jelly bean you lost, assuming that the car should continue safely in a straight line because the steering wheel seems pretty straight when you last saw it.
Yes, they were both accidents, they have that in common.
QF - Night, windy, wet, landed.
Vs
OZ - Day, dry, calm, hit seawall about 30kts below Vref.
I was trying to think of a way of describing in motoring terms, to my family, the standard of negligence displayed in this accident.
How about driving along a straight bit of a steep 2000ft high mountain road while looking under the seat for that jelly bean you lost, assuming that the car should continue safely in a straight line because the steering wheel seems pretty straight when you last saw it.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it increasingly seems that allowing FLCH to accept flight level 000 (or similar very low numbers) is nothing sort of a serious systems-design bug.
In critical systems, if you make it possible for operators enter obviously dangerous parameter inputs, eventually they will. Either from sheer accident, ignorance, sloth or stupidity.
Unless of course, there is a legitimate use for such inputs to FLCH. I don't know. Is there?
In critical systems, if you make it possible for operators enter obviously dangerous parameter inputs, eventually they will. Either from sheer accident, ignorance, sloth or stupidity.
Unless of course, there is a legitimate use for such inputs to FLCH. I don't know. Is there?
HPSOVL:-- so how do you explain a 777 qualified crew member current on type and a member of the crew NOT noticing their unusual attitude and low IAS?? Not to mention not noticing the thrust levers were closed...
He had nothing else to do in the jump seat other than monitor what the two buffoons were doing 2 feet in front of him.
Either he's stupid or HE DIDN'T SPEAK UP.
He had nothing else to do in the jump seat other than monitor what the two buffoons were doing 2 feet in front of him.
Either he's stupid or HE DIDN'T SPEAK UP.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 10th Jul 2013 at 07:36.
So, he was a very experienced A320 Captain/trainer/TRE...
On the 320 flying a visual, you would have:
In times of high workload, the speed control and protection is very reliably looked after for you in the 320, so the speed scan becomes low priority. It would be very easy to assume the 777 was at least as "good" as the little 320, and this may in part explain why the PF was not as focussed on the speed as he should have been. Everything to the PF was in a normal and good position (for a 320).
Doesn't explain why the PNF (PM) did not spot the excursion and call it or better still intervene with a G/A.
Was ground school instructor and a SIM instructor for the A320/321
He was a captain on the A320 from 2005-2013.
Immediately prior to his initial operating experience on the 777, he was a captain on the A320.
He was a captain on the A320 from 2005-2013.
Immediately prior to his initial operating experience on the 777, he was a captain on the A320.
- Motionless thrust levers
- A/T working in speed mode if your FD was off (his was)
- Low energy automated audible warning ("speed speed")
- Full speed/stall protection regardless of A/T armed/on/off all the way down to 100RA.
In times of high workload, the speed control and protection is very reliably looked after for you in the 320, so the speed scan becomes low priority. It would be very easy to assume the 777 was at least as "good" as the little 320, and this may in part explain why the PF was not as focussed on the speed as he should have been. Everything to the PF was in a normal and good position (for a 320).
Doesn't explain why the PNF (PM) did not spot the excursion and call it or better still intervene with a G/A.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Korea Times...my bolding.
I was not aware that the NTSB had hinted anything of the sort.
Saving National Face manifests itself in the Korean public media.
Yoon’s remarks came amid the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was investigating the actions taken on the aircraft, including those of the pilots. Media both at home and abroad pointed fingers at the pilots, assuming that something went been wrong in the cockpit.
However, Jung Yoon-shik, a professor at Jungwon University based in Goesan, North Chungcheong Province, said that mechanical problems in the engines might have caused the crash.
“It is possible that the engines were not working properly when the plane was landing on the runway. With the malfunctioning, pilots might have failed to control the engines,” said Jung who previously worked as a pilot for Asiana.
Deborah Hersman, the chairwoman of the NTSB, told a press conference that the plane was traveling at about 106 knots at impact, “significantly slower than the target approach speed of 137 knots,” hinting that engine problems could be the reason of the crash.
Yoon said he will head for the Californian city on Tuesday afternoon, along with six family members of passengers who were onboard of Flight 214. Asiana said that Yoon will visit casualties who are being treated at seven hospitals in the city, including San Francisco General Hospital.
However, Jung Yoon-shik, a professor at Jungwon University based in Goesan, North Chungcheong Province, said that mechanical problems in the engines might have caused the crash.
“It is possible that the engines were not working properly when the plane was landing on the runway. With the malfunctioning, pilots might have failed to control the engines,” said Jung who previously worked as a pilot for Asiana.
Deborah Hersman, the chairwoman of the NTSB, told a press conference that the plane was traveling at about 106 knots at impact, “significantly slower than the target approach speed of 137 knots,” hinting that engine problems could be the reason of the crash.
Yoon said he will head for the Californian city on Tuesday afternoon, along with six family members of passengers who were onboard of Flight 214. Asiana said that Yoon will visit casualties who are being treated at seven hospitals in the city, including San Francisco General Hospital.
I was not aware that the NTSB had hinted anything of the sort.
Saving National Face manifests itself in the Korean public media.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this has been asked before, but could someone explain how the throttle logic works on the 777? (Never flown a Boeing)
From the NTSB press conference:
Leaving out the discussion about "assuming" anything on an aircraft, how does the whole A/T, throttle position, autopilot system interact here?
I think someone has asked about similarities with the Turkish crash at Schiphol a few years back but I couldn't find an answer - I assume that the similarities are almost non-existant?
From the NTSB press conference:
They had set speed at 137 knots and he assumed that the auto-throttles were maintaining speed.
I think someone has asked about similarities with the Turkish crash at Schiphol a few years back but I couldn't find an answer - I assume that the similarities are almost non-existant?
Don't agree.
With you right hand on the Airbus thrust levers they are located forward in the CLB detent and not fully back closed.
On the 777 they should also be located about half way forward controlling normal approach thrust and not fully back closed. In addition to that you should feel them moving and this gives you more feedback ( which unfortunately the Airbus doesn't )
Even if he was confused during this complicated visual approach in CAVOK what the hell were the TC in the RHS and the FO in the jump seat doing????
No excuses I'm afraid.
With you right hand on the Airbus thrust levers they are located forward in the CLB detent and not fully back closed.
On the 777 they should also be located about half way forward controlling normal approach thrust and not fully back closed. In addition to that you should feel them moving and this gives you more feedback ( which unfortunately the Airbus doesn't )
Even if he was confused during this complicated visual approach in CAVOK what the hell were the TC in the RHS and the FO in the jump seat doing????
No excuses I'm afraid.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 10th Jul 2013 at 07:45.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to be a lot of blame laid on the autothrottle / autothrust and the automatics. Having many thousands of hours on the A320 and A330 myself, where the autothrust is left on throughout the approach, we still had a good eye on the airspeed.
Relying on the automatics to the extent that this crew appear to have done is likely to result in a problem of this type at some time. An airspeed of 106knots with a flying approach speed of generally around 140knots is just ridiculous and, frankly, negligent.
Relying on the automatics to the extent that this crew appear to have done is likely to result in a problem of this type at some time. An airspeed of 106knots with a flying approach speed of generally around 140knots is just ridiculous and, frankly, negligent.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bangkok / San Francisco
Age: 58
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And about the low-skill pilot with thousands of hours, I'm reminded of the American pilot who was in command of Air France 447 at the time of crash. I certainly don't mean any disrespect for him but low-skill, high-hour pilots are everywhere.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...p090601.en.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: SFO/KCH
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A million excuses could be thought up for everything involving the low and slow predicament but nothing can excuse waiting until the last minute to go around when it was probably quite apparent to everyone involved in that cockpit the approach wasn't stable. I can't believe some of the posts blaming the manufacturer, airport, etc.
I agree, the Training Captain in the RHS was supposed to be capable of a higher standard than a normal Captain. He should have been in a position to take over at all times during the flight to maintain safety. These guys have to be able to take brand new trainees on their first sectors ( possibly first ever in a jet ) and still be able to fly the Jet single Pilot if necessary.
I don't care if it was his first sector as a trainer, he should have known better and just done his job.
I don't care if it was his first sector as a trainer, he should have known better and just done his job.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 10th Jul 2013 at 07:52.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to put it short and simple for a layman -
they noticed that the speed was low, but assumed the automatics will correct it. (and there may be various reasons for that assumption, technical and/or psychological, which are not clear yet).
Is that correct?
they noticed that the speed was low, but assumed the automatics will correct it. (and there may be various reasons for that assumption, technical and/or psychological, which are not clear yet).
Is that correct?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: the lake!
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think our Kiwi mate Offcut at post #717 is on the money. For those who have flown both the 74 and the 77 it is the most logical answer."
Yes, I thought so as well. Suninmyeyes posted similar information back in post 315...
http://www.pprune.org/7926629-post315.html
Yes, I thought so as well. Suninmyeyes posted similar information back in post 315...
http://www.pprune.org/7926629-post315.html
Last edited by lakedude; 10th Jul 2013 at 08:52.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Richmond, Ca
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hearing goes first when you're tired?
Would you mind terribly citing your source for this claim? It's important because in the evolution of mankind there are two senses that NEVER turn off, even when we're asleep: Hearing, and smell. There's a reason that bitching Betty's are aural vs visual, and it's not because hearing is the first sense to go when you're tired. It's also why your smoke alarm makes noise, instead of blinking lights. You might be a brilliant pilot, but man, you're just making stuff up here.
Last edited by SalNichols; 10th Jul 2013 at 09:42.