Asiana flight crash at San Francisco
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks to the PPRuNer who passed the following on. Well worth a read of this non tabloid report.
S.Korea Asked Asiana to Improve Safety 2 Months Before Crash - Bloomberg
Rob
S.Korea Asked Asiana to Improve Safety 2 Months Before Crash - Bloomberg
Rob
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From "this non tabloid report"
They actually admit they need to improve communication in the cockpit? Must non be the same Korean attitude I use to deal with!
Asiana also pledged to adopt fatigue risk management systems and improve communication in the cockpit, Kwon said.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1900ft at 5 miles is high on any 777's approach. That is a fact!
I'm genuinely interested in this statement. Are you implying that a 777 won't cope with a 3.6/7ish glide slope?
I'm genuinely interested in this statement. Are you implying that a 777 won't cope with a 3.6/7ish glide slope?
Arcsine(1,900/32,000)=3.4 degrees.
Arcsine(2,250/32,000)= about 4 degrees
Can the plane do that or not?
Last edited by thcrozier; 19th Jul 2013 at 17:44.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arcsine(1,900/32,000)=3.4 degrees.
Arcsine(2,500/32,000)= 4.5 degrees.
And if you want to be stabilized by 1000 ft it is:
Arcsine(1500/12,000)=7,2 degrees.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 19th Jul 2013 at 18:09.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simultaneously the speed must be reduced from 180 kt to 137 kt which, in terms of energy, is equivalent to 600 ft height, i.e.:
Arcsine(2,500/32,000)= 4.5 degrees.
Arcsine(2,500/32,000)= 4.5 degrees.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: the lake!
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN is reporting that Asiana Airlines Flight 214 passenger Ye Mengyan died as a result of being run over.
Coroner: Asiana passenger killed by rescue vehicle, was alive at time - CNN.com
Coroner: Asiana passenger killed by rescue vehicle, was alive at time - CNN.com
Simultaneously the speed must be reduced from 180 kt to 137 kt which, in terms of energy, is equivalent to 600 ft height....
If, in fact (TBD), 180 was requested to some point (the bridge?)....
....is it the equivalent extra energy that's of real significance, or the remaining time/distance to dissipate it that is important?
I don't believe you're implying that any necessary speed reduction could not be conducted at a 3.4 degree FPA? (which is of course operationally different from flying a constant 4.5 degree FPA at a constant 137 KCAS)
Are you?
Can the plane do that or not?
The real question is can the pilot do it?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An airliner passing a perfect 5 mile/3 degree FAF fully configured and on Vref is going to carry a substantial amount of thrust to stay at V ref.
OK465,
I'm saying that if you descend at an angle of 3.4 degrees while reducing speed from 180 to 137 kt your thrust minus drag is equal to that for a 4.5 degree angle at constant speed.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 19th Jul 2013 at 18:47.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a note - the girl was killed by the fire truck:
Coroner: Asiana Airline victim was alive until killed by rescue unit - CNN.com
Coroner: Asiana Airline victim was alive until killed by rescue unit - CNN.com
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the ground accident doesn't surprise me one bit. I've only had to evacuate once (no nosewheel landing) and by far the most frightening thing about the whole event was standing on the runway watching a herd of fire trucks thundering towards us in a cloud of black diesel smoke - it was like watching a tsunami coming at you. Ever since I've always added suitable remarks to my crew about action to be taken after an evacuation that isn't in the ops manual.
I feel so sorry for the poor firecrew...how awful must they be feeling - as lifesavers.
Its surprising this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.
I feel so sorry for the poor firecrew...how awful must they be feeling - as lifesavers.
Its surprising this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KSAN
Age: 62
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was a new flight surgeon in the RCAF, 25 years ago, part of my job was to ride in the crash ambulance for the frequent crash drills and occasional crash response. It was a beefy 4x4 truck that could run over almost anything out on that big prairie airfield. Great fun, better than pilot medicals anyway.
It was drilled into me by the Base Surgeon and Fire Chief that we were to approach scenes carefully, scanning the ground despite any spectacle and using a "walker" in front of us if there was any doubt, (i.e. night, tall grass). During one night time "OpEval" the HQ staff had strewn mannequins in dark coveralls around a crash site to see if we would crush one in all the excitement.
ARFF on military airfields was pretty well staffed in those days, but I wonder how many crew were in the SFO ARFF foam trucks? FAA FAR 139:319 states the trucks need to be crewed to permit the "minimum agent discharge rates". That could just be a driver alone who can flip on the foam switch. That's just one pair of eyes.
The NFPA has a recommended a more robust ARFF staffing level, but of course that isn't required and so not followed at most civil fields I've seen.
The NTSB will look at the ARFF response, I suspect will see something about the minimal ARFF staffing at Cat B airports.
It was drilled into me by the Base Surgeon and Fire Chief that we were to approach scenes carefully, scanning the ground despite any spectacle and using a "walker" in front of us if there was any doubt, (i.e. night, tall grass). During one night time "OpEval" the HQ staff had strewn mannequins in dark coveralls around a crash site to see if we would crush one in all the excitement.
ARFF on military airfields was pretty well staffed in those days, but I wonder how many crew were in the SFO ARFF foam trucks? FAA FAR 139:319 states the trucks need to be crewed to permit the "minimum agent discharge rates". That could just be a driver alone who can flip on the foam switch. That's just one pair of eyes.
The NFPA has a recommended a more robust ARFF staffing level, but of course that isn't required and so not followed at most civil fields I've seen.
The NTSB will look at the ARFF response, I suspect will see something about the minimal ARFF staffing at Cat B airports.
Last edited by Sawbones62; 19th Jul 2013 at 20:12.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More info regarding the girl being hit here:
Coroner: Crash survivor was run over - SFGate
They say they have no idea how she ended up in the location where she was hit - which would appear to be between between the leading edge of the left wing and the escape slide. She had been sitting near the back of the plane with the other girl who was thrown from the plane and killed.
Coroner: Crash survivor was run over - SFGate
They say they have no idea how she ended up in the location where she was hit - which would appear to be between between the leading edge of the left wing and the escape slide. She had been sitting near the back of the plane with the other girl who was thrown from the plane and killed.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norway
Age: 56
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Squared wrote:
How can you pass 5 mile and be fully configured when you’re instructed to be at 180 knots to 5 miles?
And... Is that 5 from threshold or 5 from DME? In SFO that's a pretty big difference. Remember, glide slope was offline and they were on a visual approach, so the crew could be using SFO VOR as DME reference instead of the terminal DME.
An airliner passing a perfect 5 mile/3 degree FAF fully configured and on Vref is going to carry a substantial amount of thrust to stay at V ref.
And... Is that 5 from threshold or 5 from DME? In SFO that's a pretty big difference. Remember, glide slope was offline and they were on a visual approach, so the crew could be using SFO VOR as DME reference instead of the terminal DME.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you pass 5 mile and be fully configured when you’re instructed to be at 180 knots to 5 miles?
And... Is that 5 from threshold or 5 from DME? In SFO that's a pretty big difference. Remember, glide slope was offline and they were on a visual approach, so the crew could be using SFO VOR as DME reference instead of the terminal DME.
And... Is that 5 from threshold or 5 from DME? In SFO that's a pretty big difference. Remember, glide slope was offline and they were on a visual approach, so the crew could be using SFO VOR as DME reference instead of the terminal DME.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's pretty obvious that from whatever condition it was in over the bridge, it can decelerate and descend quickly enough to put it at a speed of 103 before reaching and below the seawall, which I believe is 12 feet high.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiptoe visual
Per NOS chart plan view note:
"1900 (for Class B Airspace) Recommended until San Mateo Bridge or SFO 6 DME"
Per text description:
"Aircraft should cross ... The San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."
So which is it, recommended or required? And from whence does the recommendation/requirement derive?
Class B chart shows protected Class B airspace aligned with 28 L/R extends from 10,000' down to the surface out to SFO 7 NM in the region of the bridge, with adjacent Class B airspace extending from 10,000' down to 1,500' between SFO 7 and 10 NM.
"1900 (for Class B Airspace) Recommended until San Mateo Bridge or SFO 6 DME"
Per text description:
"Aircraft should cross ... The San Mateo Bridge at or above 1900."
So which is it, recommended or required? And from whence does the recommendation/requirement derive?
Class B chart shows protected Class B airspace aligned with 28 L/R extends from 10,000' down to the surface out to SFO 7 NM in the region of the bridge, with adjacent Class B airspace extending from 10,000' down to 1,500' between SFO 7 and 10 NM.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: usa
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed Restrictions
As I recall, the 250 knot restriction was introduced in the late 1960s. The 210 and 180 restrictions came a few years later, after discussions between the FAA and airlines.
I do not think there is any airspeed tolerance to speed restrictions given by Approach Control. Using the standard 3 mile in trail spacing, if the lead aircraft reduces to 170 knots and the following aircraft increases to 190 knots knots, there will be a loss of separation. I have been given a side step to another runway by Approach Control, and another time a go-around, because the preceding aircraft did not comply with the issued speed restriction.
You can be stable by 1000 ft. in a B747-400, if you establish gear down, flaps 20, and 180 knots until 5 miles. Critics will say you are using flaps for drag, but it is better than using flaps 5 until 5 miles, thereby risking an unstable approach.
I do not think there is any airspeed tolerance to speed restrictions given by Approach Control. Using the standard 3 mile in trail spacing, if the lead aircraft reduces to 170 knots and the following aircraft increases to 190 knots knots, there will be a loss of separation. I have been given a side step to another runway by Approach Control, and another time a go-around, because the preceding aircraft did not comply with the issued speed restriction.
You can be stable by 1000 ft. in a B747-400, if you establish gear down, flaps 20, and 180 knots until 5 miles. Critics will say you are using flaps for drag, but it is better than using flaps 5 until 5 miles, thereby risking an unstable approach.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@jugofpropwash
[Not a pilot] I can understand (I suppose) a couple of occupied seats falling out near the threshold through the large hole in the rear pressure bulkhead. I have not yet found a decent picture of the bulkhead, but I see that it's pretty broken. I understand that people easily used it as an exit when the plane came to rest.
But what other ways were there out of the plane? Through the one exit door that fell off? Was there another hole in the plane that ejected one or more passenger? Or did more people fall through the bulkhead gash much nearer to the final resting spot of the plane?
[Not a pilot] I can understand (I suppose) a couple of occupied seats falling out near the threshold through the large hole in the rear pressure bulkhead. I have not yet found a decent picture of the bulkhead, but I see that it's pretty broken. I understand that people easily used it as an exit when the plane came to rest.
But what other ways were there out of the plane? Through the one exit door that fell off? Was there another hole in the plane that ejected one or more passenger? Or did more people fall through the bulkhead gash much nearer to the final resting spot of the plane?