Asiana Crash Investigation
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything a video camera records should be seen as a learning tool rather than a litigation tool.
Why don't planes have video black boxes? Too much risk of the video being public? Isn't learning what goes wrong the primary purpose?
Why don't planes have video black boxes? Too much risk of the video being public? Isn't learning what goes wrong the primary purpose?
Last edited by StormyKnight; 22nd Aug 2013 at 22:58.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: vietnam
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Let us have cameras filming the work on the cockpit/flight station. Also on the line, checking the engineer's work. And also on the head meetings, checking the tradings.
I don't think we have all the information...
I don't think we have all the information...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 838
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vid
Leaving to the side the shock over the fact that an emergency vehicle ran over a person at the accident site.....two points from the legal perspective. One, it is mostly if not completely pointless to swim against the tide of technological change. While the video equipment can be removed, the time when its use will be far more widespread if not universal is not far away in the future. So the removal is, when judged from that perspective, a complete waste of time.
Second, the police in my jurisdiction (meaning, the police on the university campus I serve as its legal counsel - and under State law the police department is in many respects the equivalent of a municipal department even though we are a private institution) have the vid cameras available. State law prevents audio recording but just keying the start switch works wonders when situations arise on campus. I would be very hard pressed to arrive at even a single legal reasoning precept or contention which would support removal of these devices. And I have some difficulty even imagining what legal reasoning was applied to the San Francisco matter.
Second, the police in my jurisdiction (meaning, the police on the university campus I serve as its legal counsel - and under State law the police department is in many respects the equivalent of a municipal department even though we are a private institution) have the vid cameras available. State law prevents audio recording but just keying the start switch works wonders when situations arise on campus. I would be very hard pressed to arrive at even a single legal reasoning precept or contention which would support removal of these devices. And I have some difficulty even imagining what legal reasoning was applied to the San Francisco matter.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what does the FD do next time when a news crew is on site with their camera? Or just some guy with his cell phone?
If they think that by banning firemen with cameras they're going to eliminate video of their screw ups, they are sadly mistaken.
If they think that by banning firemen with cameras they're going to eliminate video of their screw ups, they are sadly mistaken.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East of There
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFD has now reprimanded the batallion chief who had the helmet cam:
SF firefighter faces discipline for helmet camera - SFGate
SF firefighter faces discipline for helmet camera - SFGate
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joanne Hayes-White - Shame on the gutless 
! Because irrefutable video evidence now shows that a fire truck almost certainly (for complex reasons) was responsible for the death of the one of the passengers, she is going to shoot the messenger. SCUM! She is prepared to forgo information which may help save the lives of others because the same information could be used against her and her department. So tell me if I have this this right - The in the TSA rob passengers of their rights and freedom as they pass through their checkpoints but should the same people be involved in a prang, their right to privacy overrules everything else? God give me strength!
! Because irrefutable video evidence now shows that a fire truck almost certainly (for complex reasons) was responsible for the death of the one of the passengers, she is going to shoot the messenger. SCUM! She is prepared to forgo information which may help save the lives of others because the same information could be used against her and her department. So tell me if I have this this right - The in the TSA rob passengers of their rights and freedom as they pass through their checkpoints but should the same people be involved in a prang, their right to privacy overrules everything else? God give me strength!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indycar has an extensive instrumentation and safety program. The cars themselves are recording and sending thru real time telemetry, a large amount of data at all times. There is also a "black box" program that records crash parameters and forces. Additionally, drivers are fitted with head accelerometers (in their earpieces).
They regularly survive 100+G impacts, often hopping out of the destroyed car and into a backup after a medical; check. That said these are the spike/peak loads, which last for typically just fractions of a second.
They regularly survive 100+G impacts, often hopping out of the destroyed car and into a backup after a medical; check. That said these are the spike/peak loads, which last for typically just fractions of a second.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MSP
Age: 67
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In light of the discussion about base skills erosion in a highly automated environment, the following story would seem to be extremely scary.
It talks about efforts at automation in auto's ... I can only image the effect that increasing automation will have on base driving skills ...
Clearing the road for self-driving cars - FT.com
It talks about efforts at automation in auto's ... I can only image the effect that increasing automation will have on base driving skills ...
Clearing the road for self-driving cars - FT.com
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologize if my post is a bit off topic (initial thread has been closed since then) 
There was NTSB video of an incident on August 19, 2004 at KLAX.
It was a GA of Asiana Airlines Flight 204 (B747) due to another aircraft on the runway (Southwest B737)
I found it interesting that 747 while being on final (probably 0.5-0.8nm from threshold) sunk "a bit" more than it should have, then climbed and then started to descend again toward the threshold and finally initiated GA due to 737 on the runway. (I assume that NTSB animation is correct in terms of positions of ACs at each moment in time)
I am not trying to start a discussion or get a response from pro's but rather trying to point out a similarity between this approach and that infamous one in KSFO.
hopefully, I will not get kicked in the face
for posting this. thanks.
There was NTSB video of an incident on August 19, 2004 at KLAX.
It was a GA of Asiana Airlines Flight 204 (B747) due to another aircraft on the runway (Southwest B737)
I found it interesting that 747 while being on final (probably 0.5-0.8nm from threshold) sunk "a bit" more than it should have, then climbed and then started to descend again toward the threshold and finally initiated GA due to 737 on the runway. (I assume that NTSB animation is correct in terms of positions of ACs at each moment in time)
I am not trying to start a discussion or get a response from pro's but rather trying to point out a similarity between this approach and that infamous one in KSFO.
hopefully, I will not get kicked in the face
for posting this. thanks.Last edited by Sunamer; 24th Sep 2013 at 06:14.
No Charges Against Fire Truck Driver.
In News today at abc.net.au/ news
That sounds fair to me.
No criminal charges will be filed against a firefighter whose emergency vehicle struck and killed a teenage passenger who had survived the Asiana Airlines crash-landing at San Francisco airport in July.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the information. Could that NTSB study "focusing on pilot awareness in highly automated aircraft, emergency response and cabin safety" be so rich than lighting the excessive action on pedals and rudder during the AA587 investigation.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The importance of what is said ...
Sunamer – thanks for the post of the animation (NTSB Animation Asiana Airlines Flight 204 and Southwest Airlines Flight 440). This is the first time I’ve seen this particular animation and I think it speaks VOLUMES … but, it must be viewed WITH the volume turned ON, and the person watching MUST be listening (and listening carefully) to what is said. The TWR controller clears the SW flight onto Runway 24L, “Position and Hold.” After some intra-tower conversation – sounding like a maintenance vehicle requesting clearance to cross RW 24 Right – the controller issues the clearance, “SW 440 Turn Left heading 210, runway 24 Left, cleared for takeoff.” The SW flight acknowledges the clearance. Subsequently, the controller advises ... “United 961, LA tower, caution wake turbulence, B747 on short final, 24R, cleared to land.” Of course we don’t have access to the clearance originally given to Asiana 204, but, according to this clip, it is clear that the controller’s mind-set was the B747 was lined up for, and intended to land on, RW24Right. It was only when the B747 began the go-around, and announced that fact on the radio, that the Controller cancelled the takeoff clearance for SW440 and instructed them to "hold."
While there may (or may not) have been a continuation of the B747's descent ... which may (or may not) indicate some kind of issue with either pilot knowledge or proficiency - but I think the issue of their original clearance looms even a larger concern!
While there may (or may not) have been a continuation of the B747's descent ... which may (or may not) indicate some kind of issue with either pilot knowledge or proficiency - but I think the issue of their original clearance looms even a larger concern!
Last edited by AirRabbit; 28th Oct 2013 at 16:40.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, but what I was trying to point out was - according to animation (again, since it is from NTSB I would have hoped it is correct in terms of sync of audio with animation and relative positions of AC with their alts and speeds shown correctly)
had 747 continued that descend (prior to leveling off and climbing), it would end up touching down even before the beginning of RW.
It just looks like it was below GS significantly (regardless of the validity of clearance from ATC - since clearance itself hardly can make AC to go below GS on short final).
had 747 continued that descend (prior to leveling off and climbing), it would end up touching down even before the beginning of RW.
It just looks like it was below GS significantly (regardless of the validity of clearance from ATC - since clearance itself hardly can make AC to go below GS on short final).
Last edited by Sunamer; 16th Nov 2013 at 14:39.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Sunamer … Thanks once again. You are quite right! I wasn’t paying very much attention to the B747’s final approach altitude until the B737 had reached a critical point in taxiing onto the takeoff runway. Because of your comments, I’ve again reviewed the clip and this time I focused on the B747 image from the initiation of the clip. You are more than correct! Watching that approach again, focusing on the entire flight path from the initiation of the clip, it appears that the B747 descended to a point well below a desired descent path, and climbed back to the original descending flight path to land. Once again achieving the “proper” descent flight path, it can be seen initiating another decent. Just after re-initiating the descent, it appears to level off ... and then again reinitiate the descent - indicating the likelihood that someone in the cockpit had again realized the flight path was not correct. After a very short time, once again, someone apparently recognized something improper … OR … they noticed the B737 taking the runway … and, for one reason or the other, they decided to execute a go-around. It’s hard to know for sure why the go-around was initiated.
Additionally, when viewing the B747’s flight path during the missed approach, someone could be convinced that the approach path was indeed for Runwy24 Right – strictly because of the apparent position of the airplane during the initial stages of the missed approach that are shown over the airport/runway complex in the clip. However, presuming that the animation was constructed correctly in all aspects (left-right; forward-aft; up-down; including the shadows), as the B737 taxis out, the nose gear position is directly in the middle of the shadow of the fuselage, indicating that the shadow is directly under the airplane. AS the B747 goes around over the boundary, its shadow is aligned with the right edge of Runway24 Left … immediately to the right of the B737, and as it climbs out, it apparently continues to drift over to the right - where it should have been throughout the approach.
So … after a whole series of “screw-ups” by that B747 crew … this certainly could have been another SFO … but was very narrowly averted!
Additionally, when viewing the B747’s flight path during the missed approach, someone could be convinced that the approach path was indeed for Runwy24 Right – strictly because of the apparent position of the airplane during the initial stages of the missed approach that are shown over the airport/runway complex in the clip. However, presuming that the animation was constructed correctly in all aspects (left-right; forward-aft; up-down; including the shadows), as the B737 taxis out, the nose gear position is directly in the middle of the shadow of the fuselage, indicating that the shadow is directly under the airplane. AS the B747 goes around over the boundary, its shadow is aligned with the right edge of Runway24 Left … immediately to the right of the B737, and as it climbs out, it apparently continues to drift over to the right - where it should have been throughout the approach.
So … after a whole series of “screw-ups” by that B747 crew … this certainly could have been another SFO … but was very narrowly averted!
