Did the Asiana crash have basically the same cause as the Indian Airlines A320 crash
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, this may work as intended, but it may also not. Because unlike manual flight, there can be quite a bit of logic involved in what modes are active and how the airplane is going to behave in reality vs. what's expected. So the sequence of button pushes and knob twists may not work
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-018/
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what aircraft you fly , whether automatics or manual, you don't fly an approach without ever looking at speed. In Indian crash 27kts, in SFO crash 31kts below Vapp. Not a single call by anyone about speed. Both flights were command checks. Doesn't say much about the checker does it? All involved had lost their scan quite some time ago. They were an accident waiting to happen.
Last edited by vilas; 29th Mar 2018 at 17:34.
Turkish Airlines did it at Schipol (circa 2007?) 3 on the flight deck busy talking
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that it excuses them, but It's easier for me to understand not catching the decreasing airspeed as the plane follows the glidepath. To be sure, an inexcusable lapse, but from my perspective very different than being on a visual approach in good vfr conditions and not taking action when your airplane is headed for an impact someplace a long way from the runway (aside from also losing track of airspeed)
I do agree that there are common elements; the autothrottles doing something other than what the pilots were expecting and a period of time where the autiothrottle mode was unrecognized or misunderstood.
Only half a speed-brake
The non-similarity issue of Asiana againstthe A320 is that if those Airbus gentlemen had only pulled, the A/C would have saved everyone. As well as their "initiation" of the doomed trajectory. They flew the aircraft by actively selecting a mode and not reviewing what they'd done.
Both of the Boeing cases OTOH, the crews found themselves through no wrongs of their own in a LOW energy situation ABOVE G/S, close to the ground. Walked over a trap.
Both of the Boeing cases OTOH, the crews found themselves through no wrongs of their own in a LOW energy situation ABOVE G/S, close to the ground. Walked over a trap.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 29th Mar 2018 at 15:42.
FWIW, both the Visibility and Ceiling were below VFR minima (Or at least US VFR minima) they were on a coupled approach following the glidepath.
Not that it excuses them, but It's easier for me to understand not catching the decreasing airspeed as the plane follows the glidepath. To be sure, an inexcusable lapse, but from my perspective very different than being on a visual approach in good vfr conditions and not taking action when your airplane is headed for an impact someplace a long way from the runway (aside from also losing track of airspeed)
I do agree that there are common elements; the autothrottles doing something other than what the pilots were expecting and a period of time where the autiothrottle mode was unrecognized or misunderstood.
Not that it excuses them, but It's easier for me to understand not catching the decreasing airspeed as the plane follows the glidepath. To be sure, an inexcusable lapse, but from my perspective very different than being on a visual approach in good vfr conditions and not taking action when your airplane is headed for an impact someplace a long way from the runway (aside from also losing track of airspeed)
I do agree that there are common elements; the autothrottles doing something other than what the pilots were expecting and a period of time where the autiothrottle mode was unrecognized or misunderstood.
