|
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 1443765)
The stick shaker is WAY less than 10 knots less than programmed speed...and this crash is an indication that the stick shaker warning can be too late.
LOTS of the public is screaming about why the pilots didn't do something when the stick shaker activated, not realizing that the pilots DID try and go around after the stick shaker....it was already too late, at that point. |
Originally Posted by atpcliff
(Post 1443761)
It IS good the 777 has a visual warning...the plane I'm flying does not...but I still think an Aural warning is needed, as you might not be looking at the PFD when your airspeed decays....it is VERY easy to get distracted...like on the EAL everglades flight.
Maybe we could get Hersman to make a recording for the warning system: "Your .. Air .. Speed .. Is .. Low." |
I've long said there are 3 phases to learning a new airplane: 1) It's flying you 2) You're flying it 3) You can fly it in the box it came in. No matter what else happened or is discovered; this guy was in phase 1...
|
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1443767)
Isn't that the whole idea of PF and P 'not flying'/'monitoring' - in a multi-crewed airplane. Someone is looking OUTSIDE flying and someone is looking INSIDE monitoring?
|
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1443844)
Not at all. PM is monitoring everything and is legally obligated to intervene if safety may be compromised. Doesn't matter whether the PM is PIC or SIC.
If you thought I was making a statement about the PF and PM/PNF duties being PIC/SIC specific - then you misunderstood my post. atpcliff posted: It IS good the 777 has a visual warning...the plane I'm flying does not...but I still think an Aural warning is needed, as you might not be looking at the PFD when your airspeed decays....it is VERY easy to get distracted...like on the EAL everglades flight. It seems to me that he is stating that the PF is not watching his airspeed decay because he is concentrating on looking outside and therefore needs an aural warning to alert him. My contention is that the PNF/PM should be montioring the airspeed. The PNF/PM is the PF's eyeballs inside the cockpit for the exact purpose of catching deviations |
Originally Posted by Sniper
(Post 1443557)
Anyone know if the ATC audio in this video is at full speed and unedited (ignoring the video)? If so, the landing clearance seems to have come VERY late, only :20 seconds before you hear a "go around" call by Skywest, I believe (a GA aircraft is transmitting as well at the time). Oddly, Asiana reports they're "7 miles south, 28L" just prior, :25 seconds before the "go around" call. 7 miles, land/crash, and a pilot initiated go-around based on the visuals of the crash all in :25 seconds? Simple math tells me that's an average groundspeed of over 1000 kts over that last 25 seconds! NTSB reports they were doing less than 120 kts around the same time. Something doesn't add up here.
This initial video probably gives a very rough approximation of the action, which is nice to look at, I guess. I'll wait for the NTSB report's video animation for the facts. |
Originally Posted by APC225
(Post 1443844)
Not at all. PM is monitoring everything and is legally obligated to intervene if safety may be compromised. Doesn't matter whether the PM is PIC or SIC.
BTW, I don't see anyone you're replying to making any reference to PIC/SIC so what's that got to do with it? |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 1443854)
It seems to me that he is stating that the PF is not watching his airspeed decay because he is concentrating on looking outside and therefore needs an aural warning to alert him. My contention is that the PNF/PM should be montioring the airspeed. The PNF/PM is the PF's eyeballs inside the cockpit for the exact purpose of catching deviations
Never to mention the bunkie FO sitting in the 'smart' seat.... |
Originally Posted by MD11Fr8Dog
(Post 1443861)
Never to mention the bunkie FO sitting in the 'smart' seat....
Guess it could have been the 6th level of safety that would have saved the day - or it might have been the 6th level of safety ignored that day. There was once a midair between to fighters practicing dogfighting. They had violated FIVE (5) of the CURRENT air-to-air training rules briefed prior to every such flight. The safety board decided that adding 2 or 3 more rules would fix the problem.:cool: This sort of reminds me of that. :( |
Originally Posted by mike734
(Post 1443624)
It's interesting. If this incident turns out to be some sort of watershed event, will it mean more reliance on automation, (after all it's those inexperienced pilots who are problem), or less reliance on automation (pilots need to keep basic flying skills sharp)?
Regulation always seems to crop up after watershed events. Maybe it means a push to replace us with automation ASAP but in the mean time, more hand flying. I don't count on congress to get it right. Thread hijack? Sorry. Anyone who studies this incident to any depth will come to understand that this would be very unlikely to have occurred in US 121 operations...too many of us are still good at basic stick-and-rudder flying. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:27 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands