Asiana 777 Crash at SFO
07-16-2013, 07:28 AM
#571
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
I'd say this thread has about run its course.
I just heard that a local Bay area TV news station is about to release an updated list of the names of the Asiana flight crew. Should get as much replay time as the UAL Captain’s article.
07-17-2013, 06:50 AM
#573
maverick
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Position: 69
Posts: 40
decision to allow PF in OE to effect ldg at SFO with G/S 28L OTS NOTAMed is questionable.
but kudos to the crew for...initiating GA....pulling the nose up...just in time...else the impact could have been head-on...consequences much worse.
but kudos to the crew for...initiating GA....pulling the nose up...just in time...else the impact could have been head-on...consequences much worse.
07-17-2013, 07:48 AM
#574
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by flyboy2909
decision to allow PF in OE to effect ldg at SFO with G/S 28L OTS NOTAMed is questionable.
Originally Posted by flyboy2909
..but kudos to the crew for...initiating GA....pulling the nose up...just in time...else the impact could have been head-on...consequences much worse.
07-17-2013, 11:32 AM
#575
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
Letting this particular pilot try to do it was a mistake based on the results. Letting any experienced pilot fly a visual approach to 28L in SFO doesn't really seem like a bad call, IMO.
Isn't this sort of like giving someone kudos for pulling their hand out of a pot of boiling water after they watched it start boiling and stuck their hand in?
Isn't this sort of like giving someone kudos for pulling their hand out of a pot of boiling water after they watched it start boiling and stuck their hand in?
07-17-2013, 06:51 PM
#576
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Phantom Flyer
I agree Timbo. As Jungle and others have pointed out, this accident was an "automation" and CRM issue; not a stick and rudder problem. To those that said they were "tired" after a long flight...bull**.
First of all, all visual approaches must be backed up by some instrument approach procedure. If it's clear and a million and you want to hand fly the approach, go for it. I do it all the time; however, there is something installed in the box for every approach. The 777, like a lot of other FMC systems, allow for the construction of an approach even if the runway doesn't have one installed. We learned that in initial sim training and as part of our type ride or company checkride, a visual approach with NO vertical or lateral guidance must be flown properly. We would "construct" an approach and the 777 software gives one a 3.5 degree glide slope (that can even be a variable) from the end of the runway. It even had a "Chinese glide slope" as we called it, that displays just like an ILS glide slope on a visual approach. It's simple.
In my view, and I've worked with many Asian pilots, there is a over dependance on automation. Some of that is cultural and some of it from their training. It doesn't mean the Korean pilots aren't smart; they are but are trained to use the autopliots/autothrottles to excess. Nuff' said.
This accident was a pilot undergoing IOE with a Check Airman/IOE Instructor who was behind the eight ball for whatever the reason. That will come out of the investigation. What I still can't understand is, and please help me....how this accident happened in an aircraft that has a ton of software to facilitate approaches and landing and is so easy to fly and land.
At a Loss for an explanation.... G'Day Mates
First of all, all visual approaches must be backed up by some instrument approach procedure. If it's clear and a million and you want to hand fly the approach, go for it. I do it all the time; however, there is something installed in the box for every approach. The 777, like a lot of other FMC systems, allow for the construction of an approach even if the runway doesn't have one installed. We learned that in initial sim training and as part of our type ride or company checkride, a visual approach with NO vertical or lateral guidance must be flown properly. We would "construct" an approach and the 777 software gives one a 3.5 degree glide slope (that can even be a variable) from the end of the runway. It even had a "Chinese glide slope" as we called it, that displays just like an ILS glide slope on a visual approach. It's simple.
In my view, and I've worked with many Asian pilots, there is a over dependance on automation. Some of that is cultural and some of it from their training. It doesn't mean the Korean pilots aren't smart; they are but are trained to use the autopliots/autothrottles to excess. Nuff' said.
This accident was a pilot undergoing IOE with a Check Airman/IOE Instructor who was behind the eight ball for whatever the reason. That will come out of the investigation. What I still can't understand is, and please help me....how this accident happened in an aircraft that has a ton of software to facilitate approaches and landing and is so easy to fly and land.
At a Loss for an explanation.... G'Day Mates
07-17-2013, 07:08 PM
#577
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 1,043
Originally Posted by flyboy2909
decision to allow PF in OE to effect ldg at SFO with G/S 28L OTS NOTAMed is questionable.
07-17-2013, 07:22 PM
#578
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
..I have seen far too many guys try to follow the Chinese glide slope below minimums in the sim,
All kidding aside, I agree w/ HIFLYR. It good form/use of tools to backup a visual approach with something. To declare it must be done is a little extreme. Are you going to go hold or make your PM stop doing the "M" and start typing on final so you can put whatever backup, kung-fu stuff you need in the box when Tower gives you a side-step? Yeah, you could refuse, I suppose. If you can't take a jet from 7 miles to landing on a CAVU day with a PAPI unless you got the ILS or stuff in the fix page or runway in the legs page or a [insert nationality] glide slope you need to find another line of work.
07-18-2013, 08:25 AM
#579
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,487
I occasionally fly with an FO who's a super-anal SOP and automation freak. In a small airplane, we get switched to the parallel a lot...this guy will be heads down looking up/tuning the ILS freq or re-programming the box while I'm at flight idle in the flare. He's afraid he'll get violated if he doesn't follow the SOP suggestion that visuals be backed up with something.
I've tried to talk him down until I'm blue in the face. He's fairly new but if he doesn't start seeing the big picture soon I'm talking to pro standards. As an FO, he's a joke...as a CA he'll be dangerous.
I've tried to talk him down until I'm blue in the face. He's fairly new but if he doesn't start seeing the big picture soon I'm talking to pro standards. As an FO, he's a joke...as a CA he'll be dangerous.
07-18-2013, 09:03 AM
#580
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
I was amazed at the lengths that other pilots would go through to load something into the box when I first started flying in my current job. I didn't have the opportunity in my previous flying xperience 99% of the time so I thought it strange that they would rush, rush, rush to load the ILS into nav/comm and bring up the appropriate display on the EHSI and dial in the course and such all while I am basically already established on a visual approach or maybe an extended base leg for example.
After reading on this forum about more of the P121 operations, and pax carrying P135 operations, I see that is a fairly standard practice in other parts of aviation, but there are times when I'd still rather have my co-pilot looking outside than have their heads buried in the boxes in the terminal area.
After reading on this forum about more of the P121 operations, and pax carrying P135 operations, I see that is a fairly standard practice in other parts of aviation, but there are times when I'd still rather have my co-pilot looking outside than have their heads buried in the boxes in the terminal area.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
