Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Delta (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/)
-   -   Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/36912-any-latest-greatest-about-delta.html)

alfaromeo 07-08-2013 04:47 PM


Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1441546)

I keep clicking on the Login button and nothing happens. Must be a faulty 787 in that picture.

scambo1 07-08-2013 04:51 PM


Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1441567)
Scambo,

What about my speculation of being high on the visual approach, descending in either FLCH or VNAV SPD and field elevation set in the altitude window? Since there was no glide slope for them to capture, airspeed control modes would command changing pitch since autothrottles would stay held at idle. If as they captured their visual glide path they disconnected the autopilot and flew visually thinking the engaged autothrottles would hold targeted speed, speed would slow all the way to shaker plus a few knots because the flight director would have been commanding the hand flying pilot to lower pitch in order to hold speed. Since they were flying a visual glide path it's understandable for them to ignore a flight director trying to tell them to lower the nose. The autothrottles would still have woken up, but would have done so low to the ground from idle. And from idle, it would take at least 6 or more seconds for engines to produce any meaningful thrust to affect an aircraft so close to stall.

Any technical holes in this speculative possibility?

Carl

Carl, IMO there are no technical holes, but to do your scenarios, it would increase the workload of a simple visual and would be unbelievably poor form for mode choices, so poor in fact that I cannot imagine having gone thru simulator training and then try either one of those modes for the final approach phase.

I think the flying pilot had the auto throttles switched off for this to happen in a normal line flight. I am guessing his approach speed was around 140 and he got down to 103. I am taking the Occam's razor viewpoint on this. Loss of situational awareness (slow speed flat approach) in a relatively normal visual approach.

Heck, I didn't even know Sfo had a sea wall you could hit.

To be clear though, I don't know what happened. I am not trying to armchair quarterback this at all. I was airborne when it happened and got a dispatcher email when it happened. That is all I know.

80ktsClamp 07-08-2013 04:52 PM


Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1441578)
I keep clicking on the Login button and nothing happens. Must be a faulty 787 in that picture.

Definitely not a 787. The battery hasn't melted and sharted out the back end of the plane.

firstmob 07-08-2013 04:54 PM

What's the latest on aircraft orders, new or used?

80ktsClamp 07-08-2013 04:55 PM


Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1441579)
Carl, IMO there are no technical holes, but to do your scenarios, it would increase the workload of a simple visual and would be unbelievably poor form for mode choices, so poor in fact that I cannot imagine having gone thru simulator training and then try either one of those modes for the final approach phase.

I think the flying pilot had the auto throttles switched off for this to happen in a normal line flight. I am guessing his approach speed was around 140 and he got down to 103. I am taking the Occam's razor viewpoint on this. Loss of situational awareness (slow speed flat approach) in a relatively normal visual approach.

Heck, I didn't even know Sfo had a sea wall you could hit.

To be clear though, I don't know what happened. I am not trying to armchair quarterback this at all. I was airborne when it happened and got a dispatcher email when it happened. That is all I know.

It's my understanding that they were really high... Would it be illogical to guess that they went into FLCH trying to get down thus putting the AT into HOLD mode? Then drifted lower and lower and outside of the protection range for AT wake up?

80ktsClamp 07-08-2013 04:56 PM


Originally Posted by firstmob (Post 1441585)
What's the latest on aircraft orders, new or used?

The board has already met. Announcement supposed to come late next month I believe.

scambo1 07-08-2013 05:03 PM


Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1441586)
It's my understanding that they were really high... Would it be illogical to guess that they went into FLCH thus getting the AT into HOLD mode? Then drifted lower and lower and outside of the protection range for AT wake up?

If they were really high, I can see using flch (as in Carl's scenario) They sure didn't stay high. As Timbo alluded to earlier, the 777 is a glider, but once it's dirtied up, it's like a 737-200. Remember the days on the 737 of tossing out the boat anchor. It takes a little while to configure the 777 due to the flap speeds and glide angle, but once you are dirty you can come downstairs in a hurry.

Carl,
When I answered your previous post, I did not know they were supposedly really high. If that was in fact the case, they would have selected level change and probably set airport elevation. However, they landed in line with the runway, so someone was looking outside. We've done this scenario many times in the sim, landing short was never the issue.

At the end of the day, in our sim sessions, those high visuals we're an exercise in energy awareness. If nothing else, they enhance your awareness of your energy state including airspeed and throttle position.

scambo1 07-08-2013 05:34 PM


Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1441587)
The board has already met. Announcement supposed to come late next month I believe.

So what is it?

2 777s
10 A330s
And 30 a 321s

Or will we be parking a higher number of 757s:eek:

If we announce another firkin code share I think I will...

Columbia 07-08-2013 05:38 PM


Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1441586)
It's my understanding that they were really high... Would it be illogical to guess that they went into FLCH trying to get down thus putting the AT into HOLD mode? Then drifted lower and lower and outside of the protection range for AT wake up?

According to this graphical depiction, they were high.... 2/3 of the way down.

Asiana flight crash at San Francisco - Page 6 - PPRuNe Forums

Carl Spackler 07-08-2013 05:40 PM


Originally Posted by scambo1 (Post 1441594)
If they were really high, I can see using flch (as in Carl's scenario) They sure didn't stay high. As Timbo alluded to earlier, the 777 is a glider, but once it's dirtied up, it's like a 737-200. Remember the days on the 737 of tossing out the boat anchor. It takes a little while to configure the 777 due to the flap speeds and glide angle, but once you are dirty you can come downstairs in a hurry.

Carl,
When I answered your previous post, I did not know they were supposedly really high. If that was in fact the case, they would have selected level change and probably set airport elevation. However, they landed in line with the runway, so someone was looking outside. We've done this scenario many times in the sim, landing short was never the issue.

At the end of the day, in our sim sessions, those high visuals we're an exercise in energy awareness. If nothing else, they enhance your awareness of your energy state including airspeed and throttle position.

I'm looking at a radar plot graph now and it shows an altitude of about 1,900 feet AGL and about 185 knots groundspeed at 4NM from touchdown. Gear and flap position at this point is unknown so far.

Carl


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands