Below the GS at SFO again
 

A 777.
From the Pacific Rim into San Francisco.
600 feet at 3.8 miles.
Aircrew only did something about it when the Tower alerted them.

Unbelievable.

Incident: EVA B773 at San Francisco on Jul 23rd 2013, descended below safe height

Yes, definitely unbelievable.

As SLF and a simmer (shoot me down), it is incomprehensible that two qualified pilots allow a normal situation to deteriorate to this point.

All the data they require is in front of them. They drive cars, too, don't they ? Oh wait, cars park themselves these days.

On that note, planes do land themselves too.

Too many similarities between this occurrence and the ill fated flight from Inchoen, perhaps we shall dig deeper to find out why instead of pointing fingers. Well that's my thought anyways.

Indeed it is, and two lots of two even more so? So Silver Spur is right, needs looking at?

Is there still no ILS on 28L at SFO? It's incomprehensible to me that a major airfield can have an ILS outage that long.

Ksfo ils rwy 28l ots due construction until aug 22, 2013.

It is completely comprehensible.

Ils are also routinely shut down or notamed unserviceable due to flight check/calibration and even grass cutting around the critical area(s).

Whist not a major airfield, Rome CIA a few years back was VOR only after the ILS LOC TX was taken out by a biz jet. It remained like this for months and months......still, just take a look at the NOTAMS for Italy these days - nothing ever seems to get fixed.:rolleyes:

Why no RNAV GNSS? Might help out the visual approach fearing crews. Gives you an aircraft 2 reds 2 whites on glide on centreline at under 2 miles to run generally.

I understood that not only was the ILS out but they had taken the PAPIs away at the same time. Are they both still missing ?

What´s incrompensible of an ILS being U/S due construction works? Same is happenig for example in OBBI and no one is flying dustcropping style approaches over there. What is incomprensible is a set of pilots 600ftAGL 3.8nm form touchdown.

Kids nowadays don't know how to fly visual approaches any more without aids.

The issue is not the ILS/PAPI OTS, the issue is the lack of actual flying experience by these jockeys......

Question: If you fly Visual Approach can you choose your own glide path angle? It's only water bellow so you can a bit low if you fly visually. Or can you fly very small angle like 1 degree all the way over the water?
From Air Law side:If you fly visually you avoid obstacles visually. It doesn't matter if it's 777 or Cesna 152? You don't even have to be aligned with runway and can fly any angle airplane is capable of?
Why did controller intervened? Because he was scared and remembered previous accident. As I understand controller is not responsible for obstacle avoidance for aircraft flying in VFR.

Surely SFO isn't the only airport in the world where airlines regularly fly visual approaches? I don't believe in coincidence - someone needs to look at aspects that may be contributory factors.

cldvrv: Agreed, but pax don't need to die in the meantime. Surely set up a precision 0.3/0.5nm (GPS) GNSS approach (or whatever version they do or are called in the USA), at least gives badly trained pilots something to hang their hat on and perhaps prevent a crash. I enjoy a visual as much as the next pilot, but I know it will take years to change pilot culture back to hand flying skills (which are starting to be pushed again).

We are talking a major international airport at SFO. Even my little regional airport base EGBB has arranged RNAV GNSS for the upcoming ILS closure. Flew one today, could have been on an ILS.

Do these two airlines, EVA and Asiana fly visual approaches anywhere else? Are their crews trained or at least exposed/encouraged to fly visual approaches.

I agree it needs looking into, but I would start with these airlines first.

Sorry to say ... being 600 ft below GS 3.5nm out is far beyond visual approach incompetence, it's sheer absolute incompetence. No excuse at all for this. :ugh:

Pilots, Don't Let the Beancounters Dictate Qualifications. Police Yourselves!
 

Maybe what should be looked at is what constitutes a "qualified pilot" these days? In the past, at least here in the US, the airlines had many military trained pilots, who had to meet a high standard, both mentally and physically, to even begin their training, which was vigorous and thorough, especially in the basics of flying. Now, because of demand, and more military pilots staying in the military, instead of getting out to work for the airlines, we may not always get the quality of person, with the quality of training, that we used to get. I notice when this is brought up in forums, the non-military trained pilots (which most or them are for the airlines now, I think) get pretty defensive, but I'm not saying all the non-military trained pilots are bad, or even more than a small percentage. I'm just saying, the likelihood of incompetence has gone up. Luckily, it's offset, by better aircraft and automation, making flying still safer, than it was. I say, make the changes in screening and training that are needed, for airline pilots, and raise the pay accordingly. There's just not enough former military pilots to go around any longer. Whether the industry realized it or not, they were using former military pilots in place of having good, in house training and screening. Maybe the training would be a "Back to Basics" continuing education course or test on basic airmanship, including stall and recovery, cross wind landing, etc. and would only need to use a Piper Cherokee or Cessna 172, so maybe, it wouldn't cost so much, risk passengers or a high dollar aircraft? Many airline pilots are part a union. You have leverage to help dictate your compensation, etc. Why not use it to dictate qualification and training, when contract time comes up?. Otherwise, the bean counters will only spend enough to stay in "legal" compliance on qualification and training.

Here is the approach for KSFO 28L
 

KSFO RNAV (GPS) RWY 28L (IAP) ? FlightAware

:ugh:

Let's see:

They were low, waved off, came back around, and landed safely.

In a generic sense, they did what was needed. Perhaps the "29.97" alert from the controller put a finger on what was wrong; perhaps they needed a 'poke' to get back into the game, perhaps something else was going on.

As it works out, what should have happened did: low on approach, wave off, come back and do it right.

That's why there are so many pieces to the puzzle: planes, pilots, lights, navaids, radios, controllers, etc. Extra slices of cheese block the holes from lining up, so to speak.

If the controller saved the day, a tip of the cap to him.

He may have made the call about when the crew realized "this is AFU, let's go around" ... hard to say without input from the crew on what they saw.

How one gets that low on approach that close in is another question.

Because the ILS approach would be in the FMC database and this could be used for guidance on a visual approach.