Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Speed is life, too slow will get you low and could finally kill you.
The probable obvious cause of this accident seems to be non existent energy management by the crew.
The low speed was the reason for dropping low on the glidepath and for being unable to correct this situation in time. Most information for a visual approach can be found or correlated from outside visual references, speed canīt. It has to be checked with the instruments and managed properly.
There seems to be a overreliance on the AT to do this job at all times and under most circumstances. There is no excuse that the speed decay in that published amount and time was not recognized until it was too late.
....says an old fighter pilot
The low speed was the reason for dropping low on the glidepath and for being unable to correct this situation in time. Most information for a visual approach can be found or correlated from outside visual references, speed canīt. It has to be checked with the instruments and managed properly.
There seems to be a overreliance on the AT to do this job at all times and under most circumstances. There is no excuse that the speed decay in that published amount and time was not recognized until it was too late.
....says an old fighter pilot
Last edited by RetiredF4; 9th Jul 2013 at 10:01.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im amazed this thread is as long as it is. In the main its full of Ill informed opinion that borders on BS, scattered with constant reposts of video and weather information. On one page we even had the flight track information posted by three separate posters. Its obvious many are to busy with there FSX investigations to bother reading the thread before launching there next great theory.
People are concerned and people with an interest in aviation want to know. Although some posters display lack of knowledge, very few are stupid and in virtually all cases are just displaying concerns that can be answered by those who know more. Where better to ask these questions?
Last edited by funfly; 9th Jul 2013 at 10:03.
I have read the entire thread and it shocks me that so many professional pilots are excusing the pilots of the Asiana 777 for their failure to land a perfectly serviceable aircraft in CAVOK.
Even if there were no PAPIs (and I understand there were until the crash) and no ILS, NDB, magenta line or even a little line of red buoys floating around in San Francisco Bay (!) I would expect a 777 pilot to land safely. I'd even expect a pilot rated on other Boeing types to manage the seemingly unlikely task of maintaining a visual approach at around 3 degrees with speed within acceptable tolerances.
Unless it emerges that the aircraft suffered windshear or an engine failure of some sort, these pilots do not deserve sympathy and neither do those who employed them. You cannot have incompetent people in charge of transport airplanes.
Even if there were no PAPIs (and I understand there were until the crash) and no ILS, NDB, magenta line or even a little line of red buoys floating around in San Francisco Bay (!) I would expect a 777 pilot to land safely. I'd even expect a pilot rated on other Boeing types to manage the seemingly unlikely task of maintaining a visual approach at around 3 degrees with speed within acceptable tolerances.
Unless it emerges that the aircraft suffered windshear or an engine failure of some sort, these pilots do not deserve sympathy and neither do those who employed them. You cannot have incompetent people in charge of transport airplanes.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the NTSB does individual interviews with each crewmember and then ask them as a group with everyone in the same room. I'm sure the replies will differ a lot....
Although human factors will play a large part in ascertaining the reasons why this accident occurred, the NTSB is not in the business of trying to catch anyone out.
The report into Fedex 647 contained the interviews with both the PF and PM who both independently stated that both main gears touched down simultaneously, the aircraft track and heading were along the centreline and the PF used rudder to 'uncrab' prior to landing.
None of this proved to be true when the FDR data and wreckage witness marks and positions were examined. The NTSB report did not declare that the pilots had both lied to the investigation, it simply stated what the pilots had said and that the crash was most likely caused by the PF simply failing to correct before touchdown and the PM failing to act.
Ironically this was also an accident which happened on a check/training flight where the PM who was also a TC, watched their charge fly a perfectly good aircraft into the ground, although in slightly more challenging circumstances.
bekolblockage post 1129,
Thats a really good video. I'm pleased to see a senior management pilot talk about maintaining hand flying skills 'click-click' 'click-click'....look out the window!
Thats a really good video. I'm pleased to see a senior management pilot talk about maintaining hand flying skills 'click-click' 'click-click'....look out the window!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: on an island
Age: 81
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent too many years in mishap investigation to comment on what were the causes of the poor approach in this mishap. That's the investigating team's job. However, as to the mindset displayed by some here-
YUP!
It is the PIC (not "management") who bears the ultimate responsibility for the operation of the aircraft, to include the automation. If he or she (or the crew) is not competent to oversee the "flying" done by the automation, or take over when the automation is not up to the task at hand, then he or she should not be in the cockpit as PIC. If the PIC knows, before takeoff, that a piece of the automation or an external aid is not available, then the PIC should plan the compensation before takeoff, or refuse to fly if he or his crew cannot successfully compensate. If an airport's ILS GS is O/S, their responsibility is to make that known while they take corrective action. It is the PIC's responsibility is to decide whether or not the PIC and crew are competent to fly there under those conditions. Safe flying operations are never the other guy's responsibility as long as there is a PIC who really does take command, and has one critical skill - the courage and wisdom to say, "No!".
Well said. Automation is supposed to aid the human beings to manage the situations safely. If the crew or managements think that automation is the ultimate solution for safety in airline business as compared to improved fundamental and basic skill flying training then we will continue to have accidents.
It is the PIC (not "management") who bears the ultimate responsibility for the operation of the aircraft, to include the automation. If he or she (or the crew) is not competent to oversee the "flying" done by the automation, or take over when the automation is not up to the task at hand, then he or she should not be in the cockpit as PIC. If the PIC knows, before takeoff, that a piece of the automation or an external aid is not available, then the PIC should plan the compensation before takeoff, or refuse to fly if he or his crew cannot successfully compensate. If an airport's ILS GS is O/S, their responsibility is to make that known while they take corrective action. It is the PIC's responsibility is to decide whether or not the PIC and crew are competent to fly there under those conditions. Safe flying operations are never the other guy's responsibility as long as there is a PIC who really does take command, and has one critical skill - the courage and wisdom to say, "No!".
Originally Posted by Mikehotel152
Unless it emerges that the aircraft suffered windshear or an engine failure of some sort, these pilots do not deserve sympathy and neither do those who employed them. You cannot have incompetent people in charge of transport airplanes.
What then would you do about this incompentence, oh mighty expert?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: anytown
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the outcome of the crash investigation , it's going to fuel the ongoing discussion : Whether to do away with 'wetware' altogether and leave everything to a box or three full of microchips or start teaching pilots and would-be pilots the art of moving something heavier-than-air in the selfsame medium without the aid or interference of all the electronic gee-gawery..
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Asia
Age: 54
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a group interview afterwards is a great idea.. it wont catch them out ( you need a barister and a court for that) , they will have already called each other and sorted out what needs to be said ( like the transport example) .. but it will indicate the dynamics of the group.
Originally Posted by stallspeed
or start teaching pilots and would-be pilots the art of moving something heavier-than-air in the selfsame medium without the aid or interference of all the electronic gee-gawery..
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Two hundred baro
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure why the NTSB is bothering investigating this accident, it seems all the experts here have got it all wrapped up already....evidently Koreans shouldn't be allowed to fly, it's their culture that crashed this plane and it would never happen to a western airline....oh, hang on, the French can't be trusted either. Hmmm, maybe Tenerife happened because the KLM captain was Dutch... Eastern 401? Weren't there 3 Americans on the flight-deck? AA 587? Oh dear.
More than 50 pages of drivel, wild speculation and racist innuendo, with a nice sprinkling of holier-than-thou comments from ace Western pilots, and the occasional, but sadly infrequent, bit of genuine useful information (the repeated posting of which shows that most of you aren't even reading previous posts), make this one of the worst threads I have ever read.
And for the eejit who earlier told me I should know a bit more about other cultures before I am qualified to criticise his stereotypical and bigoted views, I grew up in another culture, have worked all over the world, and presently fly for an airline that employs over 60 nationalities.
Anyway, I'll leave you all to it. Personally, I'll wait for the NTSB report and the CVR and FDR transcripts.
More than 50 pages of drivel, wild speculation and racist innuendo, with a nice sprinkling of holier-than-thou comments from ace Western pilots, and the occasional, but sadly infrequent, bit of genuine useful information (the repeated posting of which shows that most of you aren't even reading previous posts), make this one of the worst threads I have ever read.
And for the eejit who earlier told me I should know a bit more about other cultures before I am qualified to criticise his stereotypical and bigoted views, I grew up in another culture, have worked all over the world, and presently fly for an airline that employs over 60 nationalities.
Anyway, I'll leave you all to it. Personally, I'll wait for the NTSB report and the CVR and FDR transcripts.
No it doesn't.
It has 2 lovely big Airspeed indicators ( speed tapes on the LCD PFD's ) and a smaller standby Airspeed indicator.
When they are working ( unlike AF447 ) you don't need AOA indications.
It has 2 lovely big Airspeed indicators ( speed tapes on the LCD PFD's ) and a smaller standby Airspeed indicator.
When they are working ( unlike AF447 ) you don't need AOA indications.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 9th Jul 2013 at 10:45.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or refuse to fly if he or his crew cannot successfully compensate. If an airport's ILS GS is O/S, their responsibility is to make that known while they take corrective action. It is the PIC's responsibility is to decide whether or not the PIC and crew are competent to fly there under those conditions.
If he had declared that he didn't feel he or his crew could 'complete the mission' with the ILS U/S, he is either sent back to the sim for further training or the TC says 'What better way to learn than fly the approach for real. After all, I am there to catch any balls you may drop'
Catch 22 as Yossarian would say.
Speed mode
[QUOTE][/CDRW
Bet my last dollar the A/T was in hold mode and the thrust levers where being used as what they are always used as - hand rests. And I say this with out spite of venom - 8000 hrs in an Asian carrier gave me this observation.
QUOTE]
Agree totally, this aircraft was a glider, no one noticed the AT mode. From 500' the speed drops off rapidly to maintain the glide path. 200' would probably be the point of no return after this point the engines would not have had time to spool up given the rapidly decreasing rate of speed and already low.
The aircraft crashed due to the lack of monitoring of the AT mode. It stayed in AT hold till Toga was applied 1.5 secs prior to impact. Would have been better to have shut them down at this point and accepted the aircraft was going to crash.
Better to crash with engines off.
Bet my last dollar the A/T was in hold mode and the thrust levers where being used as what they are always used as - hand rests. And I say this with out spite of venom - 8000 hrs in an Asian carrier gave me this observation.
QUOTE]
Agree totally, this aircraft was a glider, no one noticed the AT mode. From 500' the speed drops off rapidly to maintain the glide path. 200' would probably be the point of no return after this point the engines would not have had time to spool up given the rapidly decreasing rate of speed and already low.
The aircraft crashed due to the lack of monitoring of the AT mode. It stayed in AT hold till Toga was applied 1.5 secs prior to impact. Would have been better to have shut them down at this point and accepted the aircraft was going to crash.
Better to crash with engines off.
James James James.....
Even if the A/T had failed or stayed at Idle any competent crew "would" notice the loss of Thrust and therefore IAS during a normal approach......
No excuses I'm afraid..
Even if the A/T had failed or stayed at Idle any competent crew "would" notice the loss of Thrust and therefore IAS during a normal approach......
No excuses I'm afraid..
Last edited by nitpicker330; 9th Jul 2013 at 10:49.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the PIC (not "management") who bears the ultimate responsibility for the operation of the aircraft, to include the automation.
Interesting to see all the discussion posted here...I have nearly 8,000 777 hours, including a considerable number with another Korean operator, I must say that observing the locals in SIM checks, a visual approach would generally stretch their abilities to the limit, normally all flying is conducted with auto thrust engaged, so with Vref+5 set it generally does a very good job at maintaining the required speed, as to how this aircraft was able (allowed to) have it's speed reduce well below the target speed is a mystery to me, were the auto throttles disconnected, either inadvertently or with intent? We will have to wait for the NTSB report.