Asiana 777 Crash at SFO
07-08-2013, 04:36 AM
#261
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 397
Originally Posted by JoeyMeatballs
Not sure if this was already posted but the pilot flying was doing his First landing in the 777, it was his OE trip
Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training
Can't wait for the media & public to scream how outrageous he was doing "training" with people on board
Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training
Can't wait for the media & public to scream how outrageous he was doing "training" with people on board
07-08-2013, 05:32 AM
#262
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by captjns
Better yet... was the PAPI set for a narrow body versus a wide body?
Originally Posted by Busdriver320
My .02..
Both GS's have been OTS for awhile, relocation of thresholds (several hundred feet of displacement to comply with some sort of clearway/overrun requirement, which is complete)
Both PAPI's have been OTS as well, although not sure if they were today but seems unlikely they have been re-aligned as threshold move was only complete last week.
Charted visual rec altitudes on both L & R are below actual electronic GS & PAPI paths; actual ILS GS at the "Bridge" is 2000 ft, chart rec's 1800+ for 28R and 1900+ for 28L. Anyone at those altitudes at the Bridge is already low.
Barring mechanical failure to produce thrust, I think they got low and had no electronic or visual guidance to help them and it was too late when they realized it. It's clear the tail hit the rip-rap (stone breakwall) at the bay perimeter.
Both GS's have been OTS for awhile, relocation of thresholds (several hundred feet of displacement to comply with some sort of clearway/overrun requirement, which is complete)
Both PAPI's have been OTS as well, although not sure if they were today but seems unlikely they have been re-aligned as threshold move was only complete last week.
Charted visual rec altitudes on both L & R are below actual electronic GS & PAPI paths; actual ILS GS at the "Bridge" is 2000 ft, chart rec's 1800+ for 28R and 1900+ for 28L. Anyone at those altitudes at the Bridge is already low.
Barring mechanical failure to produce thrust, I think they got low and had no electronic or visual guidance to help them and it was too late when they realized it. It's clear the tail hit the rip-rap (stone breakwall) at the bay perimeter.
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
PAPI-4L system set at 3.00 deg and a 75' TCH.
I can see the scenario now for your next LOFT. Your going to be required by the FAA to demonstrate a visual approach with an inop glide slope, no PAPI, and no vertical NAV .
Gorgeous day. Cleared for the visual. (Maybe while still on the downwind) No ILS for backup. No VASI. Didn't program, or didn't follow, a VNAV glide path.
On July 6, 2013, weather conditions at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) allowed pilots to land by visually lining up for approach before landing—referred to as landing under visual flight rules (VFR).
On June 1, 2013, the FAA issued a notice to airmen (Notam) indicating that the glide slope system was scheduled to be out of service from June 1, 2013 to August 22, 2013 on Runways 28 left and 28 right. The glide slope system, which is not necessary for safe landing at SFO under visual flight rules, was being relocated as part of a runway safety improvement project.
The precision approach path indicator (PAPI) light system, which provides visual guidance information to help a pilot acquire and maintain the correct approach to a runway was operating at the time of the accident. The localizer, or radio frequency system which helps guide aircraft to land on the center line of the runway was operational as well. Neither of these systems is needed to support an approach and landing made under visual flight rules.
The FAA regularly monitors and maintains all of the airport's navigational aids to make sure they are accurate. While the ongoing runway safety project at SFO is underway, the FAA has operational Instrument Landing Systems available on its other runways to allow pilots to make safe instrument landings in low visibility conditions.
On June 1, 2013, the FAA issued a notice to airmen (Notam) indicating that the glide slope system was scheduled to be out of service from June 1, 2013 to August 22, 2013 on Runways 28 left and 28 right. The glide slope system, which is not necessary for safe landing at SFO under visual flight rules, was being relocated as part of a runway safety improvement project.
The precision approach path indicator (PAPI) light system, which provides visual guidance information to help a pilot acquire and maintain the correct approach to a runway was operating at the time of the accident. The localizer, or radio frequency system which helps guide aircraft to land on the center line of the runway was operational as well. Neither of these systems is needed to support an approach and landing made under visual flight rules.
The FAA regularly monitors and maintains all of the airport's navigational aids to make sure they are accurate. While the ongoing runway safety project at SFO is underway, the FAA has operational Instrument Landing Systems available on its other runways to allow pilots to make safe instrument landings in low visibility conditions.
07-08-2013, 06:21 AM
#265
Where's my Mai Tai?
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: fins to the left, fins to the right
Posts: 1,730
Originally Posted by Sniper
If we follow the speculation, and tie it to the NTSB facts, you'll see a former 747 pilot with over 10K hours doing his first landing in a 777 as a visual approach with no GS or VASI/PAPI, and to SFO, an airport with water all around, so little ability to judge depth perception.
07-08-2013, 07:00 AM
#266
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Seat 0B
Posts: 2,300
Raw footage starting at short final to impact (scroll to mid-page of link).
Why Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash was survivable - CNN.com
better link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3558524.html
Why Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash was survivable - CNN.com
better link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3558524.html
Last edited by TheFly; 07-08-2013 at 07:03 AM. Reason: added link
07-08-2013, 07:01 AM
#267
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 737
The pilot was transitioning from the 737.
The 737 has never been the easiest airplane to land, and flaring high can result in damage due to a high sink rate. One does NOT flare a 737 high. And obviously, the visual cues are going to be vastly different.
Transitioning to the 777, even though I had done WB before (but 10 years in the 737), was mentally stressful, as I had little feel for just how high the mains are above concrete while groping for the runway. It felt like I was flaring in the stratosphere.
So I can see this... the pilot is attempting to create a sight picture similar to the 737. That does not explain why he got slow, nor does it explain why the other pilots didn't start chiming in much earlier, and with more force.
If the AT system is armed, it would prevent slow speeds above 100' RA, correct? So it was either disarmed, which is really odd, or he was so dragged in, it reached 100' well short of the threshhold, OR he was physically holding them back.
07-08-2013, 07:13 AM
#268
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Captain
Posts: 101
Could he not have been using FLCH during the visual approach and the AT system went into "HOLD" with the power at idle. He then clicks off the AP to fly the final portion of the approach but the AT's remain in hold at idle. Who knows, but I doubt he was physically holding the throttles back.
07-08-2013, 07:43 AM
#270
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 480
Originally Posted by ForeverFO
That does not explain why he got slow, nor does it explain why the other pilots didn't start chiming in much earlier, and with more force.
Because culturally, they prefer not to. Their power distance is huge between supervisors and bosses.
When the 747 crashed in Guam, the FO actually complimented the Captain on his use of the radar when they were getting beat up by storms.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
