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, 15:11
  #1721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lonewolf 50.

I do agree with you.

The training department of the airlines have the following 2 options.

1) Airline pilots are not very good at manual flying, therefore they should avoid it.

2) Airline pilots are not very good at manual flying, therefore they should practice it.

I prefer option 2 because I regularly hand fly when not jet lagged. But for someone who has always engaged the autopilot at 200 feet after takeoff and disconnected it at 500 feet before landing, a manual practice in the sim every six months is not enough and he/she should use the automatics whenever possible.

How long before someone declares an emergency for an unexpected autopilot disconnect?

Last edited by draglift; 11th Jul 2013 at 15:12.
draglift is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:13
  #1722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not sure there's a pilot on here advocating that an ILS should be mandatory, in fact I'm in total agreement that the ability to fly a visual circuit should be not only taken as granted but practised when possible. But I fail to see how ignoring SFO's penchant for leaving heavy's hot and high and the FAA's general view that in good weather aids are a bonus does any of us any good!

SFO atc has been the first part of my Threat brief for some time, ive felt there's been an accident waiting to happen there for some time, if there's a cultural problem here it's not all in seoul!

Last edited by the heavy heavy; 11th Jul 2013 at 15:26.
the heavy heavy is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:25
  #1723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When 3 pilots are capable to check and call out "speed" ! on finale approach, for me it's A FAIL. No excuses.
I would not like to be in their situation...
Greenlights is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:33
  #1724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,103
Received 295 Likes on 186 Posts
But I fail to see how ignoring SFO's penchant for leaving heavy's hot and high
Does the captain not have the option to decline the 180/5 (or other abbreviated entry that rushes the approach) if ATC calls for it?
He is still required to fly a stabilized approach if he's carrying passengers, is he not? (If I misunderstand the regs, please advise).
The FAA's general view that in good weather aids are a bonus does any of us any good!
I don't understand your beef there. So long as you know what NAVAIDS are or are not available, via NOTAM, charts, ATIS ... you can plan the correct approach for your aircraft and mission.

I am willing to bet that you do each and every time you carry pax from one place to the next.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Jul 2013 at 15:34.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:34
  #1725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: France
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last NTSB media briefing at 2100 UTC

NTSB to Hold Final Media Briefing on Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Investigation


July 11, 2013

San Francisco – National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah A. P. Hersman will hold a media briefing on the investigation into the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, in San Francisco, that occurred on July 6, 2013.

While the on scene investigative work continues, this will be the last media briefing. Further investigative updates will be provided from NTSB headquarters in Washington D.C.

Event: Press Briefing

Date/Time: Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. (PDT)

Location: Holiday Inn
(Peninsula room)
275 South Airport Blvd
South San Francisco, CA 94080

Participants: Chairman Deborah Hersman
Squawk_ident is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:35
  #1726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
United 885

My understanding is that at least one of the crew of UA885 did see the aircraft and knew it was too low.

Inside United Flight 885: A pilot's gripping account - Chicago Business Journal
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:37
  #1727 (permalink)  
10W

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hasn't anyone listened to the ATC tapes? You can clearly hear "go around" called when Asiana is on short final. That "go around" was called by the UAL flight crew holding short.
On the clip I heard, it sounds more like

''San Francisco Tower, Skyward (?) 737 (go around), 1,500 feet over San Carlos (?)''

The 'go around', if transmitted by the UAL, appears to be made when someone else is already transmitting, so it may not have been heard anyway. It is of such short duration with no reference to who it refers (callsign or type), that even if it was transmitted with the best of intent, a pilot might not work out it's for him, especially if not a native English speaker. Consider also that the Tower has multiple arrivals to multiple runways, with aircraft being cleared to land with other aircraft ahead, and the simple call of 'go around' with no other information could cause multiple go arounds as well as confusion as to who it was actually referring to.

The other problem with these clips is that they are not necessarily in a proper chronological sequence and the time can be compressed. They also seem to have transmissions from several different frequencies all jumbled in together. None I have heard are very helpful to the armchair investigator.

The NTSB will have the ATC and CVR tapes, which should be much clearer and easier to interpret than some of the internet offerings. No doubt their findings will come out as the investigation progresses.
10W is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:37
  #1728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Aidensfield
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing's standard operation procedures say that autothrust should be used in all flight phases in B777. That is what I've been told, I haven't flown that type myself.

Is it so that all 777 operators require their 777 pilots to fly manual approaches with A/T on? Or are there some operators that say it's ok to control thrust manually when flying an approach manually?
AF Eagle is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:42
  #1729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
10W wrote:
"The 'go around', if transmitted by the UAL, appears to be made when someone else is already transmitting, so it may not have been heard anyway. It is of such short duration with no reference to who it refers (callsign or type), that even if it was transmitted with the best of intent, a pilot might not work out it's for him, especially if not a native English speaker. Consider also that the Tower has multiple arrivals to multiple runways, with aircraft being cleared to land with other aircraft ahead and the simple call of 'go around' with no other information could cause multiple go arounds as well as confusion as to who it was actually referring to"

Oh, I'm sure it wasn't heard by the Asiana crew, but I just wanted to counter the criticism that the UAL crew sat there and said nothing..
legomaniac is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:51
  #1730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps a bit too much focus on ILS. Please don't forget the PAPIs. Thanks to the PAPIs, this aircraft made it to the runway. It certainly appears as though one of the crew spotted the red lights and made an adjustment. If the PAPIs hadn't been turned on for this approach I wonder how much worse it would have been. Can anyone with more knowledge about SFO than myself, explain why the PAPIs have been routinely turned off for the past several weeks?

I can understand the reasoning behind ILS G/S being turned off but I haven't the foggiest why it has been necessary to switch off the PAPIs to boot..
nigegilb is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:53
  #1731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lone wolf,

Absolutely, you can decline to follow atc's instructions and at SFO it can result in a very elongated approach, just as with JFK. However, I always decline 180/5 and I've spent 10 years politely refusing the rope that the controllers at SFO love to offer you. 747 slows down very nicely from 160 kts till 4! There is no excuse to follow a dumb atc request, there's even less excuse to give one in my opinion.

As for 'my beef' with the aids, well I'm a lover of flying the thing like I rented it and wrapping round the corner as much as the next man, but, the passengers pay to be flown from a to b as safely as possible. I've no doubt in my ability to get in from 4 miles downwind at iAD, at night, on a visual but is it easier, therefore safer, to get radar vectors to an 8 mile final? When im as tired as should be expected at the end of a 10 hr flight should we be trying to make it as easy as possible or should I be demonstrating my circuits? If I'm given a choice then they'll be times I have take the visual option, they'll also be times I monitor the jet getting me close to , or on to, the runway. My beef is I like options, the FAA and many of your colleaugues don't think they're necessary.
the heavy heavy is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:54
  #1732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ The Heavy Heavy post#1762

"SFO atc has been the first part of my Threat brief for some time, ive felt there's been an accident waiting to happen there for some time, if there's a cultural problem here it's not all in seoul!" (Where is the "Quote" button on this forum?)

I've been waiting to see if this was mentioned, as it was starting to play on my mind. There is an unfortunate aspect to dealing with some officials in the USA, which is that they regard those they are meant to be working for as a nuisance, and anyone asking for more than is offered is made to feel that they are ... well, let's say "unappreciated" This is cultural, and I doubt that SFO ATC are any less prone to it than any other "public servant" in the country. However, it is an attitude that will put people off asking for assistance/clarification/reassurance. I suspect that CRM might be needed in more places than Asiana.
Legacy Driver is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:56
  #1733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this the approach procedure that joema was talking about?

It shows the gs is not coincident. Would the TCH of 53 show them low on the PAPI at TCH 64? ( I assume the PAPI is set with the VGSI?)

28L RNAV GPS WAAS 2.85 degree GS.


Last edited by UAVop; 11th Jul 2013 at 16:00.
UAVop is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 15:58
  #1734 (permalink)  
10W

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh, I'm sure it wasn't heard by the Asiana crew, but I just wanted to counter the criticism that the UAL crew sat there and said nothing..
The UAL Relief FO made no mention of a warning transmission being made in his published account (see post 1008). Of course, that neither proves nor disproves that a call was made by his crew. They certainly noticed that all was not right.
10W is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 16:01
  #1735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Legomaniac - I made it perfectly clear in my earlier post that I intended no criticism of the crew of UA885
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 16:13
  #1736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh, I'm sure it wasn't heard by the Asiana crew, but I just wanted to counter the criticism that the UAL crew sat there and said nothing..
There are two parts to the final seconds of Flight 214.

The part where they are low but still have time to do something about it and the part where nothing will prevent the plane hitting the seawall.

There is no point saying anything over the air during the second part and during the first part, the natural assumption is that the flight crew are dealing with it to ensure a successful outcome.

Any member of the UAL flight crew who is agonising over whether they should have spoken up, should spend a minute thinking about how they would feel if the PF Asiana 214 was about to apply thrust and was then distracted by a 'third voice' on the air shouting 'Watch out Asiana, you're too low!" which then may or may not have affected the outcome.

I know that I personally would spend the rest of my days thinking 'if only I'd kept quiet, two people may still be alive'.
Speed of Sound is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 16:43
  #1737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UAVop

There has been no report as to whether this approach was used or not.

PAPI is just one type of VGSI.





However, even if the crew of OZ 214 were flying this approach, the small difference in TCH is not likely to be found significant.

Zeffy is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 16:44
  #1738 (permalink)  
10W

PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DozyWannabe

The town of San Carlos has a small airport (KSQL) nearby, and it's a designated relief airfield for traffic for SFO below a certain size (5,670 kg max gross) - it can't take a 737 - any locals know what the reference may have been?
Listening to it again, it sounds more like Skyhawk 737, which is probably just a Cessna 172 Skyhawk with the tail number 737. The low level reported and the position would make sense from what you've said.

Legomaniac

Yes, it WAS the United flight who called the go-around everyone heard on the tower tapes!
Thanks for that. Would love to hear a cleaned up version of the call to see if there was more to it than a general call of 'Go Around' and to see when it was made with reference to the accident aircraft's profile. It's all after the fact of course and won't change anything, I am just wondering if it would have made any difference if acted on, or if it was too late anyway.
10W is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 17:04
  #1739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My understanding is that at least one of the crew of UA885 did see the aircraft and knew it was too low.

Inside United Flight 885: A pilot's gripping account - Chicago Business Journal
That's full circle: An article that's almost entirely an email snippet he mooched off here now gets mentioned at a later point in the same thread.
ross_M is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2013, 17:16
  #1740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
737ZD

737ZD is a Skyhawk based at Palo Alto and was out on a part 91 personal flight. The pilot properly responded to the urgent "stay away" call from the SFO tower.
rsterrill 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.