|
From the S.F. Chronicle:
SFO victim's family files claim against city Jaxon Van Derbeken Updated 8:37 am, Thursday, January 9, 2014 The parents of the 16-year-old girl who died after being struck by two San Francisco Fire Department rigs at the scene of the Asiana Airlines plane crash in July have filed a legal claim against the city. The claim, the likely precursor to a lawsuit, says firefighters knowingly abandoned Ye Meng Yuan "in harm's way" after the crash and that the Fire Department failed to train its employees to avoid hitting victims at disaster scenes. Two other Chinese citizens died July 6 when the Boeing 777 came up short of the runway, struck a seawall and burst into flames at San Francisco International Airport. Ye, who was in a fetal position on the ground near the plane's left wing, was alive before she was struck by the two foam-spraying fire rigs, according to the San Mateo County coroner. Ye was killed as a result of the firefighters' "gross negligence," said the legal claim, which the girl's parents filed this week. The claim did not specify a damage amount. The city attorney's office now has 45 days to respond. If it rejects the claim, the girl's family can file a lawsuit. A spokesman for the city attorney said Wednesday that lawyers are evaluating the claim and had no comment. Ye was struck first by a rig that had been spraying foam on the burning plane's wing. In documents released last month, the National Transportation Safety Board said footage from a dashboard camera showed that the rig's spotter firefighter had first directed the vehicle around the girl. The rig later returned to the area, however, and ran over Ye, the footage shows. A second rig later ran over the girl after she had become covered in firefighting foam, footage shot by another firefighter's helmet camera shows. Fire Department officials have said firefighters looked at Ye before she was struck and concluded she was dead, but none of them checked her vital signs. Chief Joanne Hayes-White has called Ye's death "a tragic accident," and no one in the department has been brought up on disciplinary charges in connection with her death. However, the chief has moved to reprimand Battalion Chief Mark Johnson, whose helmet camera filmed the second rig hitting Ye, for allegedly violating a department policy against unauthorized videotaping. In the legal claim, the attorney for Ye's parents, Gan Ye and Xiao Yun Zheng of China, accused firefighters of "deliberately and knowingly abandoning" the girl in a spot where "they knew she would be in harm's way." The claim says there was no spotter aboard the second rig when it hit Ye, and that it was not equipped with required infrared equipment to detect the heat of victims in its path. The family says the Fire Department failed to properly train firefighters to assess victims, mark their locations and avoid hitting them. |
Off topic - they are suing
I don't want to detract from the great discussion of the use of automation, and the specific use and operation of Boeing 747-787 auto throttles any further, so . . . back on topic:
Considering this 'FLC HOLD' parameter is part of every glass wide body Boeing's auto throttle system, its interesting to see the knowledge on this system. The NTSB has shown that most of Asiana's own training department didn't know about it, and FAA and EASA test pilots both had concerns about it - and it seems that that's just the tip of the iceberg, given this discussion on the forum. |
Originally Posted by Sniper
(Post 1555644)
I don't want to detract from the great discussion of the use of automation, and the specific use and operation of Boeing 747-787 auto throttles any further, so . . . back on topic:
Considering this 'FLC HOLD' parameter is part of every glass wide body Boeing's auto throttle system, its interesting to see the knowledge on this system. The NTSB has shown that most of Asiana's own training department didn't know about it, and FAA and EASA test pilots both had concerns about it - and it seems that that's just the tip of the iceberg, given this discussion on the forum. "Note: When the pitch mode is FLCH or TOGA, or the airplane is below 400 feet above the airport on takeoff, or below 100 feet radio altitude on approach, the autothrottle will not automatically activate." Why so many people are confused and or were misled during their training will be an interesting nut for the FAA to crack. However, with respect to Asiana, the Captain did express that he thought it was dangerous to fly a widebody on a visual approach to a runway without an ILS. :eek: If he truly felt this way, why did he attempt the approach? Why not ask for the other runway? Why not ask for a different approach (RNAV)? Those would be the questions I would ask him if I had the chance of meeting him. |
An article describing the efforts to reopen the runway at KSFO after the mishap:
February 3 -- It can take a week or more to replace all the lamp housing assemblies, mounts and wiring on a Precision Approach Path Indicator, or PAPI. Last July, Tech Ops did that work in 20 straight hours at San Francisco International Airport, helping to quickly put one of its main runways back in service. All of the lamp housing assemblies for the Runway 28L PAPI were destroyed when Asiana Flight 214 crash-landed at the airport on July 6. The following Wednesday, the airport authority convened a group of stakeholders, including representatives from the San Francisco System Support Center and the airport traffic control tower, to figure out how long it would take to get the runway operating again. After thoroughly investigating the crash site, the National Transportation Safety Board planned to release the runway at 8 p.m., allowing the airport to clear the crash debris and make necessary repairs. In addition to repairing the PAPI, sections of the runway needed to be filled, resurfaced and repainted; signs needed to be replaced; and runway edge lights had to be fixed. Most people at the meeting thought it would take a week to reopen the runway. The airport wanted to open it in four days. Once the deadline was set, San Francisco SSC Manager Rich Nessler turned to San Francisco Tech Ops Group Manager Faron Hahn and said, “We can’t let the FAA be the reason the runway doesn’t reopen on time.” Shortly after 8 p.m., employees from the San Francisco SSC and Engineering Services surveyed the PAPI to see what parts they would need and to make a plan to replace all four lamp housing assemblies. A new PAPI was on the way from the equipment depot in Oklahoma City, but it was a different model. Installing an entire system on Runway 28L would have stretched the project out seven to 10 days. Instead, Nessler decided to pull the lamp housing assemblies from Runway 10R, then replace that PAPI with the new system. Installation work began at 6 a.m. on Thursday, with systems engineer Bob Brown leading a group that included: resident engineers Omar Ongoco and Marissa Trias-Ruiz; environmental technicians Scott Neal, Glenn Watts, Carmen Crespo and Les Collins; and technicians Shannon Baptista and John Mendenhall. The engineers and technicians worked 12-hour shifts, wrapping up the replacement at 1 a.m. on Friday. In less than one day, they relocated four PAPI lamp housing assemblies from Runway 10R, and they installed, rewired and aligned the system. It was a “superhuman effort,” Nessler said, only made more challenging by the fact that the Tech Ops employees were working less than 100 yards from the Asiana Flight 214 salvage team. The technicians who started the project were disappointed when their shifts ended, Hahn said. “One of the guys that worked the early part of the day was really bummed out that he wasn't there to finish it,” Hahn said. “The whole team felt like that. They wanted to see it through. They would have worked 20 hours straight.” He added that “every person in the SSC contributed in some way or fashion. The guys were able to be out on runway turning wrenches because of the people back in the SSC covering daily tasks so they could focus on the PAPI.” Acting Chief Operating Officer Teri Bristol (far left) presents San Francisco International Airport with an All Points Safety "Safety Vanguard" award. Accepting for the facility (left to right) are GNAS Manager Faron Hahn, SSC Manager Rich Nessler, SSC PASS Representative Shedrick Willis, SSC Maintenance Coordinator Roy Dickerson, PASS District Representative Fred Barnes, and Tech Ops Director of Operations for the Western Service Area Dave Spencer. Photo: ATO The contributions included providing information to the accident investigation team, such as flight-check reports, equipment certifications and data from the Precision Runway Monitor and the Airport Movement Area Safety System. Over two hours, the salvage team moved the fuselage of the wrecked Boeing 777 across the airport. Air traffic controllers at the tower and TRACON coordinated the closure of the three operating runways, one of them for nearly 40 minutes, as the truck carrying the fuselage and the cleanup crew crossed them. As Tech Ops completed its work on the PAPI, the airport laid down 1,000 tons of asphalt, painted new runway markings and repaired runway edge lights. Meanwhile, SSC coordinator Roy Dickerson arranged the flight check, making sure controllers knew the plane was coming so they could create space for it. The schedule for the flight check had to be adjusted several times to accommodate the runway surface repairs. Hahn praised flight-check personnel for their flexibility. As soon as repair vehicles cleared the runway, flight check inspected the PAPI, localizer and distance measuring equipment. It flew three passes over the runway. Controllers at the tower and TRACON quickly accommodated the multiple maneuvers, which took place during one of the heavy arrival periods at the airport. The plane had completed some other work in Eugene, Ore., that morning, said Flight Check operations specialist Andrew Landwer, who coordinated the check. By 4:20 p.m., it had confirmed the equipment in San Francisco was operating properly. Less than an hour later, after FAA airport Safety and Certification Inspector George Aiken certified that the runway was safe for use, one of the main runways at one of the country’s busiest airports reopened, two days ahead of an already ambitious deadline and less than 48 hours after the NTSB had released the crash site. |
Interesting. I landed on 10R yesterday and was actually wondering why the PAPI was so dim, much dimmer than 10L. Guess that explains it.
|
They reality is that a visual approach can always be backed up via an extended centerline and VNAV to the runway touchdown zone. It is an unfortunate accident that could have been prevented. I have no first hand now,edge of the 777. However, from chatting with friends that fly it, Boeing frowns upon hand flying the aircraft with auto throttles armed on an approach. Which kind of makes sense IMHO. If you are going to handily an airplane, why would you use auto throttles at the same time? Maybe a more qualified individual can answer that question.
|
Originally Posted by Sa227capt
(Post 1573434)
They reality is that a visual approach can always be backed up via an extended centerline and VNAV to the runway touchdown zone. It is an unfortunate accident that could have been prevented. I have no first hand now,edge of the 777. However, from chatting with friends that fly it, Boeing frowns upon hand flying the aircraft with auto throttles armed on an approach. Which kind of makes sense IMHO. If you are going to handily an airplane, why would you use auto throttles at the same time? Maybe a more qualified individual can answer that question.
First off the auto throttles on a B-777 should always be "armed" as in most circumstances they will provide a last line defense or stall protection. If you are going to hand fly it is a good policy to have them disengaged but you leave the arming switch on. Secondly while it is very simple to build a runway extension which will automatically figure a three to one VNAV decent profile to the runway and give you a VDI on the right side of you PFD. The plain and simple truth is that if you can't look out the window on a CAVU day and fly a simple visual approach to runway with no nav aids or VNAV guidance. YOU SHOULDN'T be flying an airplane, any airplane much less a wide body jet transport full of people. If you are really tired and need some guidance becuase you for some reason are having a hard time judging your visual approach figure a three to one decent in your head and know that at five miles you should be about 1500' on speed and configured at 1000' you should be about 3 miles out fully configured on speed ETC ETC.. And if the auto throttle aren't cutting the mustard you push or pull those two little stick things called throttles forward or aft and make the speed correct. This is not difficult stuff. |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1573936)
Okay,
First off the auto throttles on a B-777 should always be "armed" as in most circumstances they will provide a last line defense or stall protection. If you are going to hand fly it is a good policy to have them disengaged but you leave the arming switch on. Secondly while it is very simple to build a runway extension which will automatically figure a three to one VNAV decent profile to the runway and give you a VDI on the right side of you PFD. The plain and simple truth is that if you can't look out the window on a CAVU day and fly a simple visual approach to runway with no nav aids or VNAV guidance. YOU SHOULDN'T be flying an airplane, any airplane much less a wide body jet transport full of people. If you are really tired and need some guidance becuase you for some reason are having a hard time judging your visual approach figure a three to one decent in your head and know that at five miles you should be about 1500' on speed and configured at 1000' you should be about 3 miles out fully configured on speed ETC ETC.. And if the auto throttle aren't cutting the mustard you push or pull those two little stick things called throttles forward or aft and make the speed correct. This is not difficult stuff. Love the sarcastic humor! Well said, love it! Thanks for the common sense info. |
Originally Posted by Airhoss
(Post 1573936)
Secondly while it is very simple to build a runway extension which will automatically figure a three to one VNAV decent profile to the runway and give you a VDI on the right side of you PFD. The plain and simple truth is that if you can't look out the window on a CAVU day and fly a simple visual approach to runway with no nav aids or VNAV guidance. YOU SHOULDN'T be flying an airplane, any airplane much less a wide body jet transport full of people. If you are really tired and need some guidance becuase you for some reason are having a hard time judging your visual approach figure a three to one decent in your head and know that at five miles you should be about 1500' on speed and configured at 1000' you should be about 3 miles out fully configured on speed ETC ETC.. And if the auto throttle aren't cutting the mustard you push or pull those two little stick things called throttles forward or aft and make the speed correct.
This is not difficult stuff. For the people that say that it's not that hard to build a centerline and a VDI/VPI/GP to the TDZ, that's also true. But with the various/obvious differences that can exist, that would be assuming foreign carriers ALLOW their pilots to take such liberty in doing so, taking their own initiative with the FMS, etc. |
Originally Posted by John Carr
(Post 1574351)
True, agree with all your points.
For the people that say that it's not that hard to build a centerline and a VDI/VPI/GP to the TDZ, that's also true. But with the various/obvious differences that can exist, that would be assuming foreign carriers ALLOW their pilots to take such liberty in doing so, taking their own initiative with the FMS, etc. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:48 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