Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This evacuation as described above was done in accordence with the order of known priorities and sequence of standard operating procedures taught at my airline
90 secs to complete an emergency evac. checklist? Sounds long.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lbalad
Don't think it was an all female cabin crew,I thought on one of the photos there was a male flight attendant bending down,tending to the injured.Stand to be corrected though!.
Don't think it was an all female cabin crew,I thought on one of the photos there was a male flight attendant bending down,tending to the injured.Stand to be corrected though!.
The amazing real time video shows the 777 scooting along the surface of the bay for some time before impacting the sea wall.
I think the white cloud is not water, but dust and smoke from the runway.
The aircraft hits the seawall at 00:16 in the video and the white cloud starts immediately. The pirouette starts at 00:26 and the white cloud turns red as the aircraft leaves the runway and ploughs through the dirt.
CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
PS The video looks as though it was taken from Bayfront Park, where I have also taken pictures. Look up Bayfront Park, Millbrae, CA on Google Maps to see the line of sight to the threshold of 28L.
Last edited by India Four Two; 11th Jul 2013 at 07:40.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tokyo
Age: 73
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treatment of cabin crew
Seems to be not much sensitivity shown to the cabin crew paraded before photographers in SF on Wednesday. Reportedly they are all clutching their passports. Also see NTSB to investigate delayed evacuation of Asiana flight - latimes.com
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all accident/incident requires evacuation.
Before deciding to proceed with evacuation, a number of things must be done first.
How bad was the situation?
Is a controlled disembarkation a better option? (evacuation often causes more injury)
Is the checklist done?
Are the engines still running? If so can it be shutdown from the cockpit control?
Any fire that must be extinguished first?
Remember pilot have no direct view of whats going on behind them both inside and outside.
Remember evacuate with engine running at unknown power is like sending people into shredder.
90 second is short or long to reach a decision is not for us to judge cos we are not in the cockpit and some of commenter don't even flies B777.
Before deciding to proceed with evacuation, a number of things must be done first.
How bad was the situation?
Is a controlled disembarkation a better option? (evacuation often causes more injury)
Is the checklist done?
Are the engines still running? If so can it be shutdown from the cockpit control?
Any fire that must be extinguished first?
Remember pilot have no direct view of whats going on behind them both inside and outside.
Remember evacuate with engine running at unknown power is like sending people into shredder.
90 second is short or long to reach a decision is not for us to judge cos we are not in the cockpit and some of commenter don't even flies B777.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary M
You are mistaken. Your statement is delusional.
Even if 5% of approaches are unstable, flying at Vref minus 31kts might happen maybe one in 10 million approaches, nearly always ending in a smoking hole.
Flying a transport category aircraft is not for the meek.
it is possible that glassy water near that sea wall in the lee of the prevailing wind could have made it more difficult to assess how low they were getting.
Also, Pipeliner in comment number 1483 quotes studies that show 3 to 5% of approaches made by transport aircraft are unstable, and of these, only 5% actually go around!
And another thought. Listening to ATC in the US both as pax and as IR pilot,I feel that one who is not a native speaker would have to be bold indeed to say those useful words "Say again slowly!" and if asked to fly too fast for comfort, "Unable!"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after "Crashing", and flipping around the runway, the CC contacted the pilots, re-evac, and were told to wait??
Who were these 'Muppets' upfront?
Who were these 'Muppets' upfront?
Yes, 90s is a long time, but I doubt these guys were thinking 100% straight. They'd just been thrown about the cockpit, clearly shocked and confused, and the last thing you want to do is evacuate passengers into running engines.
NTSB briefing summed it up well as does post above.
In operator I work for, and I presume most, remember when the situation is clearly catastrophic / dire, the CC can evacuate on their own initiative.
One criteria to be considered is only evacuating for a "confirmed, unextinquished" fire. That often requires external information - when they got that the evac went ahead.
So yes, I am sure whatever happened could be better with 20:20 hindsight. But not sure I'd be calling them "Muppets"...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if this has been mentioned before but it looks like there is
more than 1 party under review , Boeing also doesn't seem to be totally without blame
Boeing May Still Be Blamed In Asiana Airlines Crash: SFist
more than 1 party under review , Boeing also doesn't seem to be totally without blame
Boeing May Still Be Blamed In Asiana Airlines Crash: SFist
Boeing could still end up being on the hook for never having installed an aural warning system of low airspeed on the 777, a system which the NTSB had recommended the FAA look into requiring 10 years ago. Also, the NTSB is requesting data about any other aborted landings of 777s due to similar problems on approach, and data on the SFO runway itself.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sweet mercy!
I'm meek, I'm meek, I'm meek..... Quick take my atpl before I object again to not being unable to understand a garbled and unclear transmission, thats vitally important, or to being asked to work at a much higher workload than is necessary!
I'll go further, I'd rather fly with a meek pilot than an arrogant sky god almost any day of the week! If by meek you really mean its somebody who respects the environment we work in isn't for the stupid, the arrogant, or the foolhardy then I hope I'm as meek as you get!
Some of the comments on here really do show why the 'professional' part of this sites name really isn't needed!
I'm meek, I'm meek, I'm meek..... Quick take my atpl before I object again to not being unable to understand a garbled and unclear transmission, thats vitally important, or to being asked to work at a much higher workload than is necessary!
I'll go further, I'd rather fly with a meek pilot than an arrogant sky god almost any day of the week! If by meek you really mean its somebody who respects the environment we work in isn't for the stupid, the arrogant, or the foolhardy then I hope I'm as meek as you get!
Some of the comments on here really do show why the 'professional' part of this sites name really isn't needed!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On many Boeing aircraft I believe a synthetic voice will call "Airspeed Low" when the speed is in the yellow band (or it may be the PM reading the EICAS caution message) ...this may be a "Customer Option".
When the CVR is transcribed we will have a better understanding of all the human and synthetic voices in the final few minutes. (Rad Alt, EGPWS etc.)
When the CVR is transcribed we will have a better understanding of all the human and synthetic voices in the final few minutes. (Rad Alt, EGPWS etc.)
Last edited by ZimmerFly; 11th Jul 2013 at 08:02. Reason: Old age and fading memory
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tennessee
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Korea, age is the most basic factor to determine seniority. For this age-based hierarchy to be neutralized, there has to be a confluence of some very unusual circumstances.
Re the information about the flying pilot being ahead of the trainer at flight academy. I'm not sure how reliable that is but had that been the case, it certainly would not have stopped the older guy from speaking up. Please keep in mind, at least for the flight, he is the "teacher" and in Asian countries, teachers are respected in ways that American educators can only dream of.
Re the information about the flying pilot being ahead of the trainer at flight academy. I'm not sure how reliable that is but had that been the case, it certainly would not have stopped the older guy from speaking up. Please keep in mind, at least for the flight, he is the "teacher" and in Asian countries, teachers are respected in ways that American educators can only dream of.
The CVR supports the crew not communicating for the 2 minutes prior to the crash even as the approach was anything but airline quality and not corrected or commented upon until 7 seconds before crash. 3 pilots in the cockpit, one new to the type, one new to the position, and one very junior to the others. It fits with what other expats have seen recently among Korean crews for KAL and Asiana. It fits with the Japanese/American fellow detailing the numerous interweaving levels of seniority/deference as he has lived it. But if it makes you feel superior and civilized to believe the culture witnessed by the FAA, EU, expat pilots and instructors and consistent with the CVR is just a figment of mine, feel away.
Just because it's taboo to think something in polite society doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you aware of evac check list? Also, sometimes its safer to be inside rather than outside. In not saying this was the case now, but I guess they were trying to figure that out at least. I dont see any blame here especially until we see all the facts together.
Its easy to comment now and blame, blame, blame
In most airlines, CC have the choice to start evacuation when situation is catastrophic (fire, smoke, str tural damage). Also, contacting the flight deck after such event is an SOP for many. As I said before pilots can have certain indications, communication with ATC etc and can advise the CC not to use certain exists.
During this procedure, CC still have the option to initiate evac should circumstances deterioriate. And from what I gathered this was the situation here. CC followed SOP contacting FD and started evac when it was clear that everybody needs to get out asap and cannot wait for pilots to decide. Nothing wrong here imo.
Its easy to comment now and blame, blame, blame
In most airlines, CC have the choice to start evacuation when situation is catastrophic (fire, smoke, str tural damage). Also, contacting the flight deck after such event is an SOP for many. As I said before pilots can have certain indications, communication with ATC etc and can advise the CC not to use certain exists.
During this procedure, CC still have the option to initiate evac should circumstances deterioriate. And from what I gathered this was the situation here. CC followed SOP contacting FD and started evac when it was clear that everybody needs to get out asap and cannot wait for pilots to decide. Nothing wrong here imo.
Last edited by skytrax; 11th Jul 2013 at 08:19.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRSPEED LOW Caution Beeper
Airspeed is below minimum
maneuvering speed.
Straight from FCOM
meaning, "AIRSPEED LOW" displays on EICAS as a Caution message
and a Beeper sounds once.
Airspeed is below minimum
maneuvering speed.
Straight from FCOM
meaning, "AIRSPEED LOW" displays on EICAS as a Caution message
and a Beeper sounds once.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is getting sillier and sillier.
They screwed up the approach - we have all done that.
They knew that the approach was unstable but they failed to go around. STUPID.
Unstable approaches are one of the most common accident causes but pilots still continue into dangerous situations. This happens every day across the industry but most times they get away with it and congratulate themselves on their superiour skills. Time for some serious questions to be asked about human factors. Get-there-itis is a killer.
They screwed up the approach - we have all done that.
They knew that the approach was unstable but they failed to go around. STUPID.
Unstable approaches are one of the most common accident causes but pilots still continue into dangerous situations. This happens every day across the industry but most times they get away with it and congratulate themselves on their superiour skills. Time for some serious questions to be asked about human factors. Get-there-itis is a killer.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel, after an impact as severe as that, a 90 second delay to authorising evacuation is a very hard thing to explain or justify....I dont think your post did either
As stated, it took QF an hour
If it is "urgent" the CC can initiate it without the Flt Crew order.
What were the circumstances you know of now that definitively warranted an earlier evacuation order? PS The NTSB chair gave a good account last night of why the delay may have occurred.
Personally I suspect that the evac probably should have been called earlier, maybe even much earlier, in an ideal world. But I do not have the knowledge/data to criticise a fellow professional from afar, so will await that information.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, 90s is a long time, but I doubt these guys were thinking 100% straight. They'd just been thrown about the cockpit, clearly shocked and confused, and the last thing you want to do is evacuate passengers into running engines.
But, what might make sense is to compare this crew to previous hull losses with evacs. ordered. Does anyone know (anecdotally or in a study) how long pilots have taken to complete the checklist and order an evac.?
Of course, someone's going to say "every crash is different". Sure, but there's some value in benchmarking. If the median evac. order is issued in 9 secs. and they took 90 it's at least a hunch to dig deeper. If the median evac. order takes 2 minutes, let's move on.
In operator I work for, and I presume most, remember when the situation is clearly catastrophic / dire, the CC can evacuate on their own initiative.
One criteria to be considered is only evacuating for a "confirmed, unextinquished" fire. That often requires external information - when they got that the evac went ahead.
Nigelondraft
"But I do not have the knowledge/data to criticise a fellow professional from afar, so will await that information."
Absolutely Nigel, well said!
From what some of the posters here are saying there really is no need for an investigation. It was just useless incompetent Koreans who mishandled the approach so why waste US taxpayers money when we know the reason.
Some of us and that includes the NTSB want to know WHY this accident occurred. Are there lessons to be learned, could it have been prevented?
Aren't some of you just a bit curious how the pilot flying, with almost 10,000 hours got into this situation whilst being monitored by the PIC (13,000 hours) and the relief FO (almost 5000 hours).
Years ago I got to know a few of the engineers at the UK AAIB (NTSB equivalent). They were all thoughtful chaps, curious, intelligent, pedantic at times in a good way. One was like a terrier. When something didn't add up in a particular investigation he became yet more determined to find the truth and would not give up. I believe that's what motivates these investigators, the desire to establish the what, how and why it happened.
Absolutely Nigel, well said!
From what some of the posters here are saying there really is no need for an investigation. It was just useless incompetent Koreans who mishandled the approach so why waste US taxpayers money when we know the reason.
Some of us and that includes the NTSB want to know WHY this accident occurred. Are there lessons to be learned, could it have been prevented?
Aren't some of you just a bit curious how the pilot flying, with almost 10,000 hours got into this situation whilst being monitored by the PIC (13,000 hours) and the relief FO (almost 5000 hours).
Years ago I got to know a few of the engineers at the UK AAIB (NTSB equivalent). They were all thoughtful chaps, curious, intelligent, pedantic at times in a good way. One was like a terrier. When something didn't add up in a particular investigation he became yet more determined to find the truth and would not give up. I believe that's what motivates these investigators, the desire to establish the what, how and why it happened.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a post by Jimjim reference replacing part of the electronic machinery in a bank.
I couldn't agree more.
The test is when you explain this to a layman (i.e the people who pay for it all and ride in it).
Member of Public: Hey, why is my wife dead?
Aviation Industry: Oh, because her plane crashed, sorry.
MoP: Man. Why did it crash?
AI: Well because they turned of a piece of equipment that pilots normally use to land and they ended up crashing.
MoP: You mean it just broke?
AI: No, they just switched it off for a bit.
MoP: So if it was left on she'd be alive?
AI: Pretty much
MoP: That seems a bit wreckless.
AI: No it's not, because all of our pilots should be able to fly a visual approach. It shouldn't be a problem. Don't worry, if they screw it up we'll make sure they never get in a cockpit again.
MoP: But wasn't it a problem? I mean with the plane crash and the dead people?
AI: Don't worry - the problem is that you don't understand aviation. Go about your business.
MoP: My wife is still dead.
If a bank wiped out all our pensions because it decided to play fast and loose with technology then heads would roll.
The aviation industry needs to take a looooong hard look at itself. We are not getting it right and we are far far too quick to bury our heads in the sand about why things go wrong.
I couldn't agree more.
The test is when you explain this to a layman (i.e the people who pay for it all and ride in it).
Member of Public: Hey, why is my wife dead?
Aviation Industry: Oh, because her plane crashed, sorry.
MoP: Man. Why did it crash?
AI: Well because they turned of a piece of equipment that pilots normally use to land and they ended up crashing.
MoP: You mean it just broke?
AI: No, they just switched it off for a bit.
MoP: So if it was left on she'd be alive?
AI: Pretty much
MoP: That seems a bit wreckless.
AI: No it's not, because all of our pilots should be able to fly a visual approach. It shouldn't be a problem. Don't worry, if they screw it up we'll make sure they never get in a cockpit again.
MoP: But wasn't it a problem? I mean with the plane crash and the dead people?
AI: Don't worry - the problem is that you don't understand aviation. Go about your business.
MoP: My wife is still dead.
If a bank wiped out all our pensions because it decided to play fast and loose with technology then heads would roll.
The aviation industry needs to take a looooong hard look at itself. We are not getting it right and we are far far too quick to bury our heads in the sand about why things go wrong.
Last edited by course_profile; 11th Jul 2013 at 09:40.