Jump to content



Photo

Asiana Boeing 777 breaks up landing in San Francisco

california asiana airlines boeing federal aviation admin

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,812 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 07 July 2013 - 23:31

If the airport/airplane had a radar for detecting wind shear, and if it detected it or detected it in time. yes

The "short landing" could very well indicate a wind shear fall during landing.

The airport has a detector, they all do. And if it was working it would have detected it. if there was windshear you would have heard it in the background on the ATC concerversation. Its a very loud alarm. I've been in windshear causing a 15knot drop in speed when I was like 100-200 feet off the ground.

A bunch of people using aggregated data have shown that the planes approach was unstable and he was too low and too slow well before the accident. The planes approach speed should have been like 145 but he was at 120 well before the crash.


#32 webeagle12

webeagle12

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,281 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 04

Posted 07 July 2013 - 23:34

weird how this gets so much attention while the train crash that probably killed more than the total passenger count on the plane is generally getting ignored. 

 

Chances are the plane was hit with one of those special wind conditions that cause a dramatic loss of lift on landing even though modern airport radars are supposed to reduce the chance of them. 

 

Sorry but you wrong, that train crash is everywhere on news sites too.



#33 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,179 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:21

http://www.aviationw...3_p0-594557.xml

Asiana 777 Significantly Below Target Speed On Landing -UPDATED

Preliminary analysis of the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder from Asiana Flight 214 reveals that pilots had issues with speed control shortly before the 777-200ER hit a sea wall at the approach end of Runway 28L at San Francisco International Airport on the morning of July 6.

NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, during the NTSB’s first on-scene press conference on July 7, says pilots had discussed a target approach speed of 137 kt. But airspeed just before the crash was “significantly below” that value, “and we’re not talking about a few knots,” she says.

Based on the cockpit voice recorder, Hersman says at 7 sec. before impact, one crewmember called for an increase in speed, and at 4 sec. before hitting the sea wall, the stick shaker is heard. At 1.5 sec. before impact, Hersman says a crewmember called for a go-around. Earlier in the approach, the crew verified that the 777’s landing gear was down and the flaps set to 30 deg.


Based on the flight data recorder, Hersman says that “the throttles were at idle and airspeed was slowed below target airspeed”, adding that the throttles “are advanced a few seconds before impact” and the Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engines “appear to respond normally”.

Two of the 291 passengers were killed in the crash and 182 of the 307 passengers and crew were taken to hospitals with a variety of injuries.

Crash images and video indicate the 777 made an initial impact to the right of the centerline, losing its tail section and parts of the landing gear before sliding down the runway and then ground-looping onto the grass to the south of the normal touchdown area.

Controllers that morning cleared Asiana Flight 214 for a visual approach into San Francisco from Seoul, South Korea with 7 kt. winds from the southwest and 10 mi. visibility. Hersman says there were no reports of windshear “or adverse conditions”.

The Runway 28L glideslope system had been inoperative due to a long-term construction project, but the instrument landing system localizer and a precision approach path indicator (PAPI), a visual-based glideslope, were operational at the time of the accident, Hersman says.

In addition to interviewing the crew in the next few days, Hersman says investigators will look closely at Asiana’s flight training, operations manuals, cockpit configuration and procedures for stabilized approaches.

The aircraft was the seventh out of 12 777s that Asiana received between February 2001 and July 2012.

UPDATE: The pilot at the controls of Asiana Flight 214 when it crashed had not landed a 777 at San Francisco before, according to news reports citing the airline. He had, however, landed at the airport in other aircraft types. While he was a veteran Asiana pilot with nearly 10,000 hr. flying experience, he reportedly only had 43 hr. experience on 777-200s. The airline says the co-pilot at the time was very experienced on 777s.



#34 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,812 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 08 July 2013 - 16:59

UPDATE: The pilot at the controls of Asiana Flight 214 when it crashed had not landed a 777 at San Francisco before, according to news reports citing the airline. He had, however, landed at the airport in other aircraft types. While he was a veteran Asiana pilot with nearly 10,000 hr. flying experience, he reportedly only had 43 hr. experience on 777-200s. The airline says the co-pilot at the time was very experienced on 777s.

The news reports being CNNs ###### exclusive fear mongering?

1. It doesn't matter if the pilot has never flown to SFO before. Its a pretty standard airport afaik. There are a couple of airports that pilots need specific training for (Nepal, the old HK one) but SFO isn't one of them.

2. Who cares if he only had 43 hours in the 777? That's the way pilot training has been done for ages. The pilot had 10k hours in other planes and was being trained in the 777 with other crewmembers who were proficient and checked out in it. Saying the pilot only had 43 hours is just pathetic fearmongering.

3. The real fault lies with the other pilots for not keeping a very close eye on what was going on. His approach was unstable, he was beliw the glideslope and below Vref well before the landing and nobody said anything until 7 seconds before? Really?

Part of the problem could also be Korean Culture where its considered rude to tell someone who is senior to you what to do. There have been a number of extremely cringeworthy crashes involving Korean pilots (especially Korean Air) that could have been avoided if the co-pilot had said anything sooner / if at all. Some would have been avoided if the captain actually listened to the co-pilot instead of telling him to shut up. Look up Korean airs safety record on Wikipedia if you want more information (on my phone so I dont remember the exact flight numbers).

#35 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,179 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 08 July 2013 - 18:42

^^ this on the Korean (and other Asian) culture & correcting senior staff. It also happens in medicine.

#36 moloko

moloko

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,711 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 08 July 2013 - 19:46

The news reports being CNNs bull**** exclusive fear mongering?

1. It doesn't matter if the pilot has never flown to SFO before. Its a pretty standard airport afaik. There are a couple of airports that pilots need specific training for (Nepal, the old HK one) but SFO isn't one of them.

2. Who cares if he only had 43 hours in the 777? That's the way pilot training has been done for ages. The pilot had 10k hours in other planes and was being trained in the 777 with other crewmembers who were proficient and checked out in it. Saying the pilot only had 43 hours is just pathetic fearmongering.

3. The real fault lies with the other pilots for not keeping a very close eye on what was going on. His approach was unstable, he was beliw the glideslope and below Vref well before the landing and nobody said anything until 7 seconds before? Really?

Part of the problem could also be Korean Culture where its considered rude to tell someone who is senior to you what to do. There have been a number of extremely cringeworthy crashes involving Korean pilots (especially Korean Air) that could have been avoided if the co-pilot had said anything sooner / if at all. Some would have been avoided if the captain actually listened to the co-pilot instead of telling him to shut up. Look up Korean airs safety record on Wikipedia if you want more information (on my phone so I dont remember the exact flight numbers).

 

1.   I agree

2.  Double agree.  Everyone had to had a first time in landing at each airport. 

3.  While I have not read everything on this story what happened to the co-pilots? 

 

Not sure why he was flying so slow and low here but it is possible that his training and skill did prevent deaths of many more people.  Only one killed in a crash like this is mind boggling.



#37 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 08 July 2013 - 20:08

On some newer Boeing planes there are odd occasions on which the radio altimeter could malfunction which could be a particular problem when making a non precision landing (without a glide slope). The 777 is an incredibly safe plane, the laws of statistics state that if you log enough hours eventually you'll get the odd human error, but the fact that such a hard landing only killed 2 people is actually a great testament to how well modern aircraft are designed.



#38 webeagle12

webeagle12

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,281 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 04

Posted 09 July 2013 - 13:24

The news reports being CNNs bull**** exclusive fear mongering?

1. It doesn't matter if the pilot has never flown to SFO before. Its a pretty standard airport afaik. There are a couple of airports that pilots need specific training for (Nepal, the old HK one) but SFO isn't one of them.

2. Who cares if he only had 43 hours in the 777? That's the way pilot training has been done for ages. The pilot had 10k hours in other planes and was being trained in the 777 with other crewmembers who were proficient and checked out in it. Saying the pilot only had 43 hours is just pathetic fearmongering.

3. The real fault lies with the other pilots for not keeping a very close eye on what was going on. His approach was unstable, he was beliw the glideslope and below Vref well before the landing and nobody said anything until 7 seconds before? Really?

Part of the problem could also be Korean Culture where its considered rude to tell someone who is senior to you what to do. There have been a number of extremely cringeworthy crashes involving Korean pilots (especially Korean Air) that could have been avoided if the co-pilot had said anything sooner / if at all. Some would have been avoided if the captain actually listened to the co-pilot instead of telling him to shut up. Look up Korean airs safety record on Wikipedia if you want more information (on my phone so I dont remember the exact flight numbers).

 

Just to clear, pilot DID flown into SF hundreds of times on 747-400 but this was hist first time on 777. Of course ****ty media will leave this part out..

 

and here is statement made by United 747 pilot that was holding short:

 

Apologies if this has been posted. I receieved this from a friend of mine who got it as part of a distribution from one of the cockpit crew of the UA 747. I don't personally know tha UA relief FO but apparently permission had been granted to distribute this email freely.

 

Here is an email from a United crew holding short of the runway as the Asiana B-777 approached:

On July 6, 2013 at approximately 1827Z I was the 747-400 relief F/O on flt 885, ID326/06 SFO-KIX. I was a witness to the Asiana Flt 214 accident. We had taxied to hold short of runway 28L at SFO on taxiway F, and were waiting to rectify a HAZMAT cargo issue as well as our final weights before we could run our before takeoff checklist and depart. As we waited on taxiway F heading East, just prior to the perpendicular holding area, all three pilots took notice of the Asiana 777 on short final. I noticed the aircraft looked low on glidepath and had a very high deck angle compared to what seemed “normal”. I then noticed at the apparent descent rate and closure to the runway environment the aircraft looked as though it was going to impact the approach lights mounted on piers in the SF Bay. The aircraft made a fairly drastic looking pull up in the last few feet and it appeared and sounded as if they had applied maximum thrust. However the descent path they were on continued and the thrust applied didn't appear to come soon enough to prevent impact. The tail cone and empennage of the 777 impacted the bulkhead seawall and departed the airplane and the main landing gear sheared off instantly. This created a long debris field along the arrival end of 28L, mostly along the right side of 28L. We saw the fuselage, largely intact, slide down the runway and out of view of our cockpit. We heard much confusion and quick instructions from SFO Tower and a few moments later heard an aircraft go around over the runway 28 complex. We realized within a few moments that we were apparently unharmed so I got on the PA and instructed everyone to remain seated and that we were safe.

 

We all acknowledged if we had been located between Runways 28R and 28L on taxiway F we would have likely suffered damage to the right side aft section of our aircraft from the 777.

Approximately two minutes later I was looking out the left side cockpit windows and noticed movement on the right side of Runway 28L. Two survivors were stumbling but moving abeam the Runway “28L” marking on the North side of the runway. I saw one survivor stand up, walk a few feet, then appear to squat down. The other appeared to be a woman and was walking, then fell off to her side and remained on the ground until rescue personnel arrived. The Captain was on the radio and I told him to tell tower what I had seen, but I ended up taking the microphone instead of relaying through him. I told SFO tower that there appeared to be survivors on the right side of the runway and they needed to send assistance immediately. It seemed to take a very long time for vehicles and assistance to arrive for these victims. The survivors I saw were approximately 1000-1500' away from the fuselage and had apparently been ejected from the fuselage.

 

We made numerous PAs to the passengers telling them any information we had, which we acknowledged was going to change rapidly, and I left the cockpit to check on the flight attendants and the overall mood of the passengers, as I was the third pilot and not in a control seat. A couple of our flight attendants were shaken up but ALL were doing an outstanding and extremely professional job of handling the passenger's needs and providing calm comfort to them. One of the flight attendants contacted unaccompanied minors' parents to ensure them their children were safe and would be taken care of by our crew. Their demeanor and professionalism during this horrific event was noteworthy. I went to each cabin and spoke to the passengers asking if everyone was OK and if they needed any assistance, and gave them information personally, to include telling them what I saw from the cockpit. I also provided encouragement that we would be OK, we'd tell them everything we learn and to please relax and be patient and expect this is going to be a long wait. The passenger mood was concerned but generally calm. A few individuals were emotional as nearly every passenger on the left side of the aircraft saw the fuselage and debris field going over 100 knots past our aircraft only 300' away. By this point everyone had looked out the windows and could see the smoke plume from the 777. A number of passengers also noticed what I had seen with the survivors out near the end of 28L expressing concern that the rescue effort appeared slow for those individuals that had been separated from the airplane wreckage.

 

We ultimately had a tug come out and tow us back to the gate, doing a 3 point turn in the hold short area of 28L. We were towed to gate 101 where the passengers deplaned.

 

http://www.reddit.co..._holding_short/



#39 +zhiVago

zhiVago

    Pax Orbis

  • 9,319 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 01
  • Location: The Heartland
  • OS: Windows Seven

Posted 09 July 2013 - 13:31

Second Boeing 777 suffers mid-air incident

#40 webeagle12

webeagle12

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,281 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 04

Posted 09 July 2013 - 13:46

 

Welcome to a media...

 

#1 WTF is this has to do with this accident is beyond my understanding. So freaking what, he had technical issue and he returned to airport. / faceplam

 

#2  This was a technical issue, not an accident. Title "as always" making sound like collision or something catastrophic happen.

 

#3 Not sure why this would get posted here at first place, in this thread..



#41 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,812 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 09 July 2013 - 17:20

Webeagle you a pilot too?? I saw the same post on reddit haha since I subscribe to the aviation and flying subreddits.

#42 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 09 July 2013 - 17:32

Since the problems with the DC-10 back in the 70s and 80s manufacturers have designed their hydraulics systems to contain leaks, a hydraulic leak whilst serious is not a life threatening event, and probably more likely to have been caused by a maintenance error or part failure than a design flaw. People tend to over sensationalise aircraft problems these days, Aviation is incredibly safe, and I'd say the safety record of the 777 speaks for itself.



#43 webeagle12

webeagle12

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,281 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 04

Posted 09 July 2013 - 19:25

Breaking news: 777 made a loud fart somewhere over Pacific ocean. News at 6  :pinch:

 

Somebody will break a nail on 777, that probably will make a news too



#44 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • 9,812 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900 / Oneplus One

Posted 10 July 2013 - 00:10

Since the problems with the DC-10 back in the 70s and 80s manufacturers have designed their hydraulics systems to contain leaks, a hydraulic leak whilst serious is not a life threatening event, and probably more likely to have been caused by a maintenance error or part failure than a design flaw. People tend to over sensationalise aircraft problems these days, Aviation is incredibly safe, and I'd say the safety record of the 777 speaks for itself.

People don't over-sensationalize accidents.

The American media does because they all live for only one thing, money. If CNN/MSNBC just reported the facts, people would read it once and then move on / change channel. But if you use fear mongering and sensationalism it keeps people interested.

I mean compare these:

1. Plane crashes at SFO, mostly intact, tail missing from impact. But only two people died.
2. Plane crashes at SFO. Reports of it cartwheeling, flipping over, wings being torn off, unknown amount of survivors. PILOT ONLY HAD 43 HOURS EXPERIENCE (this was a real CNN "exclusive" headline, I wish I was kidding) STAY TUNED (same bull**** repeated every 5 mins for the next 8 hours).

Which do you think will gain more hits? Number 1 was BBC (or well close enough to BBC, they didn't report the causalities until it was confirmed). Number 2 was CNN/MSNBC.

Most people in America watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN and end up lapping up all this crap. They also don't understand aviation things. I mean most people don't know what a ground loop is. Don't know what/how type ratings and pilot training works. So if you make a giant heading saying "PILOT ONLY HAD 43 HOURS EXPERIENCE" most people would think that the pilot had only flown a plane for a total of 43 hours in his life instead of 43 hours in type with 10,000 hours+ total time in other wide-body planes.

That leads to them over sensationalizing things because well that's what they heard on the news so it's got to be true.

#45 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 11 July 2013 - 19:08

Fair point, can't argue with anything you said there.