Asiana 777 Crash at SFO
#501
Maybe we could get Hersman to make a recording for the warning system:
"Your .. Air .. Speed .. Is .. Low."
#503
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.
#504
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
#505
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.
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.
#506
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?
#507
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....
#508
Yes - I'm sure that things would go much smoother if there were autothrottles to keep the speed from getting to slow, visual cues on the speed tapes, verbal messages coming through warning of slow speed, and a pilot(s) sitting in the seat next to you (or behind you)n then we'd not have these problems - - but adding another warning is going to fix it.
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. This sort of reminds me of that.
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. This sort of reminds me of that.
#509
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.
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.
#510
Total Disbelief
I think the fallout on this will be contained where it belongs: RoK
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.
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.
I did two "tours of duty" on the 777 and am still in TOTAL disbelief that this accident happened. It's too early to determine the primary cause of this accident....but if the actions of the two "pilots" in the two front seats isn't a primary cause, I'll buy dinner and drinks for everyone !
Still cannot fathom how this happened....and I've worked with the Koreans.
G'Day Mates
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post