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 11th Jul 2013, 00:04
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any student or private pilot can land easily without a glide slope. Airline pilots are simply flying larger aircraft with the same aerodynamic principles. To say an airline pilot needs to have a glide slope to land but a beginning student doesn't makes no sense.

I have landed so many times at SFO on 28L with no GS flying an airliner with zero problems both from the north and south. All of us considered it a non event. All my pilot friends agree. Pilot standards should be raised to force all airline pilots to be able to do this simple approach or get trained so they can.

The video from the amateur video shot shows how totally incompetent these three were in letting this crash happen. Even the holding flight watching the event couldn't believe what they were doing.

Get qualified to fly your aircraft for any approach or stay out of the cockpit. We can't make aviation work if it is designed to work for the lowest common denominator and let weak pilots fly with the pro's. Get up to speed, we are not interested in lowering standards so you don't have to get up to speed.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:05
  #1562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Stormy...both with.

If you look at your without picture the 1 instrument has an airspeed tape on the left side and altimeter tape on the right. It's called a 3 in one and the display more closely matches the efis displays in the aircraft.

the 2nd picture has 3 standby instruments. Same information, but spread out on 3 displays.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:13
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Far East
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
bubbers44 - well bloody said!!! Unfortunately I think we are going towards the lowest common denominator and this balls up will accelerate this.
CDRW is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:17
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jimjim1 while relocating IT gear at work do you have to wait for someone from IEEE or FCC to come on-site, review your paperwork, you credentials, your work, and then test all of it?

The fact of how easy it is do some other thing in some other industry does not always translate to doing a complicated thing in aviation. In this case it might seem proper do devote all the resources to one runway, but this runway had other available approach alternatives and the weather was perfect. It would be like someone demand ALL cars be equipped with automated parallel parking gear because one driver drove his car into a wall. He could have picked another parking space, parked manually, tried again.
Tscottme is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:18
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LASJayhawk
Stormy...both with.

If you look at your without picture the 1 instrument has an airspeed tape on the left side and altimeter tape on the right. It's called a 3 in one and the display more closely matches the efis displays in the aircraft.

the 2nd picture has 3 standby instruments. Same information, but spread out on 3 displays.
Cheers...so if you can't notice the speed on the EFIS you probably won't notice the same thing on the three-in-one?
StormyKnight is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:19
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,356
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
From earlier in
the thread, I believe someone stated that certification standards mandate that
Go Around thrust is effective within 8 seconds of throttle application. However,
it is usually effective in less time, such as 5 seconds.

I believe it was also noted that was from a stable approach with engines
powered up - not flight idle, at a very slow speed - way behind the inertia
curve. I think I recall someone said it would likely have taken 10+ seconds to spool AND overcome the existing sink rate.
The 8 second requirement is from idle - hence the need for a specific "approach" idle schedule. Normal GA performance is better than that because they're usually initiated from well above approach idle. If Asiana had firewalled the throttles they would have had (at least) 95% of go-around thrust within 8 seconds (assuming they hadn't already hit the ground)(I think for the 777/PW4090 go-around and takeoff are the same - there are some airplane/engine combinations where go-around is a little less than max TO). As to how long it would take to recover from their -30 knot airspeed and rapid sink rate - I'm not qualified to answer - that's not something I've ever seen.
tdracer is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:21
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: SFO/KCH
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimjim1
The idea that a major airport such as San Francisco should simply turn off the ILS glide slope for a few months because they wanted to relocate the antenna seems to me to be preposterous.
Nothing preposterous about it. This isn't the only runway there.

None of our stuff is life critical.
Neither is the glide slope. Once again, this isn't the only runway there.

San Fran airport might have saved a few million dollars by not using a similar procedure - Hopefully the victims of their careless exposure of innocent people to unnecessary risk will ensure that it costs then dearly.
This isn't the airport's problem. Pilots are trained to execute a visual approach without a glide slope weather and conditions permitting. I live 5 miles from the airport and trust me, weather and wind were more than permitting that day - it was perfect.

Ford Pinto anyone?
What is Ford Pinto here is the endless beatdowns of forced automation and punitive damages against pilots who play it safe and go around when needed. Nothing is more Ford Pinto than what the aviation industry is doing to pilot training and safety in the name of $$$.
clayne is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:21
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 1,023
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For the poster who mentioned shoulder/lap belts...

No expert by any means but on one type I've operated we had them on the exit row seats. They were fitted with airbags and the reason given was because a) they could not brace against the seat in front and b) crew were seated directly in front of those pax.

With biz class seat design getting fancier and more creative, presumably something in the seat layout or design on OZ requires more than just a lap belt (thinking here of sideways seating in biz/private aircraft which often have the same setup)

Will be interesting to hear from the pax that experienced this crash in those seatbelts and compare how they fared to those in back with only lap belts.

I was interested to read that 7(!) of the crew were knocked unconscious. I guess interviews will tell us whether all or some were in correct brace position. I've wondered for some time whether the grooming requirements of some of the Asian and ME airlines may compromise the brace position of the female CC (Large, high bun hairstyle comes to mind) not to mention lots of metal hairpins close to the scalp.... ouch.. :/

Back to the main topic... !
givemewings is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:21
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,407
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Jimjim

This has been addressed several times here--the lack of a G/S did NOT cause the accident. Pilots should, without difficulty or assistance of the ILS, land in the conditions that prevailed that day.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:22
  #1570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
Age: 47
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@JimJim -

You cannot put anything new inside the ILS critical area of the airport, nor can you change the position of existing objects, without causing the existing ILS to become uncertified. You cannot even have equipment, vehicles, personnel, or other aircraft in the critical area. About the WORST thing you could possibly place in the critical area would be a non-transmitting antenna tuned to the same frequency as the existing transmitting antenna. This can set up multipath distortion leading a false glideslope indication.

Prior to the use of the new glideslope for navigation, it needs to flight-checked and certified by the FAA.

FAA updating flight inspection fleet for a NextGen world - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
slacktide is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:23
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: here and there
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jimjim1

A glideslope antenna is not life critical.

Pilots without flying skills is life critical.

By bolding and underlining such a statement you are merely displaying your ignorance of aviation related matters.
ramius315 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:25
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regardless of the 'bright lights' (perhaps the sun?), Autoflight mismanagement, fatigue, unstable approach, no glide path, low time on type, woeful support, whatever...To allow airspeed to reduce to
Vref minus 31kts is very hard to comprehend.

Just to put that in perspective, in my organisation, below 1000ft, a sustained Vref minus 3 knots would be an automatic fail in the sim.

As Ramius315 emphasises, Fly the aircraft, don't let the aircraft fly YOU
CaptainEmad is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:26
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just curious, I found a couple of cockpit images of the 777, some show a separate airspeed indicator in the center & some do not have one.

Without: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3202/3...3cd759c8_o.jpg
With: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5301/5...6d2b324a_o.jpg

Does this mean the ones without only show the airspeed on the large screens? Just curious about redundancy.
Those are standby instruments which can come from different manufacturers and can vary in configuration as the United and Eva Air planes in your photos show. After mergers and equipment upgrades it is not uncommon from what I've seen to have several configurations of standby instruments at the same carrier.

The airspeed is indicated on a separate legacy style round dial on the United panel standby instruments, it is indicated by a tape on the left side of Eva Air standby IFD (integrated flight display). Both panels pictured also have an airspeed tape on the left side of the large PFD (primary flight display).
Airbubba is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:30
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One question I do have ... is it possible that the Captain, who in his training role occupies the right seat and assumes the FO role and responsibilities, was simply rusty on the FO tasks?
Whether he was a Captain or FO he was likely alternating flying trip legs as Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring. Its not like Captains are always the ones manipulating the controls and FO are always the ones monitoring, or vice versa.
Tscottme is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:30
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was interested to read that 7(!) of the crew were knocked unconscious. I guess interviews will tell us whether all or some were in correct brace position. I've wondered for some time whether the grooming requirements of some of the Asian and ME airlines may compromise the brace position of the female CC (Large, high bun hairstyle comes to mind) not to mention lots of metal hairpins close to the scalp.... ouch.. :/
None of the cabin crew had been warned of crash so no need for bracing...

The cabin crew sit in smaller seats with smaller headrests? no? Maybe that's why 7 were knocked out?
dba7 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:36
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 443
Received 32 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by givemewings
I was interested to read that 7(!) of the crew were knocked unconscious. I guess interviews will tell us whether all or some were in correct brace position.
Why would any of the cabin crew be in the brace position? If the guys with a panoramic view of the ground rushing up at them didn't recognise they had a problem until 8 seconds before impact, what chance would the cabin crew have to recognise it in time to brace?
nonsense is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:37
  #1577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let me add some perspective here.

OK, so the ILS was unserviceable, but the PAPI apparently was working according to the pilots. Flying conditions were near perfect VMC. Even in a big jet, you are running out of excuses for this accident.

In my airline, as stated above by Capt Emad, a sustained speed excursion below Vref would be a fail in the simulator for the flying pilot.

A sustained speed excursion below Vref and not called by the non-flying pilot would be a fail for the non-flying pilot. Neglecting to call a go-around if the speed is not immediately corrected would also be a fail for the non-flying pilot.

Likewise for sustained deviations above or below the PAPI, unusual rates of descent, etc etc.

The flying pilot would be failed for sustaining these errors, and the non-flying pilot would be failed for either not noticing/calling them, or not demanding a go-around if the errors weren't immediately corrected after they were called.

That's how it works. Well, in some airlines at least. The importance is placed on noticing the error, and applying an immediate correction, or if that doesn't work, go-around. If you do this, you won't fail. In fact, in our airline you can screw up your approach but so long as you go-around either of your own accord or when told to, and get it right next time, you generally cannot be failed in the simulator.

Last edited by DutchRoll; 11th Jul 2013 at 00:42.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 00:42
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf
If Hi and slow, then you'd probably want to lead with pitch, so you can trade alt for a/s and your correction may work. If low and fast, likewise not a bad idea to lead with pitch.
It just doesn't work like that if slow. If you are high and slow and lower the nose in one of these pax jets, you'll end up on slope and still slow. Unless you stuff the nose down a lot, the speed will not increase. They have so much drag that any slight changes in pitch (those needed to correct back to the GS or PAPI) won't generate any meaningful speed change. That must be done with the throttles.

Conversely though, if low and fast, "speed to height" works really well, once again because of all the drag.

I say again. Watch the AP in a big jet fly an ILS. If it gets low, it pulls the stick back. It doesn't apply power and wait for the secondary effect to occur (granted, some underslung types may give a nose-up pitch to help). Same with speed: if it gets fast, it pulls the power off: primary effect of controls. Obviously if it is already on slope it cannot/won't pull the nose up. Likewise if it is slow: it doesn't lower the nose, it jams on a bunch of power. That's what pilots should do too.

Power and pitch do work together; the first one is used to correct the error (pitch for glidepath or power for speed) and then the other adjusts as required to maintain it's parameter.

These guys looked, from the video, to be doing the right thing with the stick: pulling back in an attempt to get back up onto the PAPI (or at least make it to the runway. Unfortunately, the system wasn't providing the power to compensate for the inevitable loss of speed.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 01:18
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 1,023
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Actually, cabin crew (should) adopt a semi brace position for every takeoff and landing, which can be changed into full brace within a second. Most are rearward facing. So to me, I am curious as to how they were braced (and if) let's face it, anyone can become complacent. I see crew on a daily basis in incorrect position for to and landing. I usually get laughed at for doing it properly but hopefully I'll be the one left standing if anything goes wrong.

Not suggesting that the OZ cc did anything wrong, but wonder whether there are factors on their side that may also need to change.
givemewings is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 01:22
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 1,023
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I think you'll find most cc jumpseats have a larger headrest than a cockpit jumpseat. Have some of you guys seriously never watched the cc at all?
givemewings 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.