A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

Post Reply
mcrit
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by mcrit »

And therein lies the point: The number of engines has nothing to do with anything, it's all about understanding your environment, and some are touch more complex than others... the kayak gives me plenty of "managing...' No engine req'd.

Lots of people sail, not many run white water... Lots of people fly, not many are "pilots."
I would suggest that until you have flown a large automated aircraft, you may want to refrain from offering opinions as to whether the people in front the seats are pilots or not. You seem to be confusing "different" with "simpler". A wing landing and a fully automated approach at a busy airport in foul wx are very different environments, both require good SA and, (you can take my assurance from personal experience) both require a pilot at the controls.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by sky's the limit »

Yes, when I flew IFR I used to think your scenario was challenging too, but the fact remains flying a heavily automated a/c in the strict IFR environment, governed by SOP's has nothing on what is required to assess one off landing sites hundreds of miles from nowhere in bad wx in a Twin Otter, or a myriad of other fixed wing examples. Perhaps the most challenging being a Heli-ski environment which is another ball game entirely... Again, one 99% of FW pilots cannot relate to, so they think a 777 is challenging despite the designers doing everything they can to design "challenging" out of it.

So, I may suggest that until you have experienced those types of applications in order to give you a direct comparable, you won't understand how easy moving millions of passengers worldwide in a highly controlled environments really is. It's just not that hard, and that three pilots who have been working in that environment for years can still bollock it up that badly, tells you a great deal about what is actually required on a daily basis. That's not to say there aren't good pilots flying automated airliners, it's just that it sure doesn't seem to be required, statistically. Hence the possible need for a change in nomenclature.

Just the way it goes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

esp803

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by esp803 »

I'm not sure if this has been posted, I was too lazy to read through 10 pages... but this is quite interesting:
http://www.slideshare.net/shanxz/asian ... _slideshow

"
11:27: Plane Makes impact at SFO
11:28: First photo of plane crash hits twitter
11:30: emergency slides Deployed
11:45: First Photo from a PASSENGER posted on the internet
....

"

it's worth a read/look

E
---------- ADS -----------
  

mcrit
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:01 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by mcrit »

This:
It's just not that hard
contradicts your very next sentence:
three pilots who have been working in that environment for years can still bollock it up
If the job were as easy as you say it is, and it didn't require a pilot to do it right, then there would not be a broken airplane and three fatalities in San Fran right now.

Again, different, not easier.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by CID »

Or perhaps a pilot lacking the required skills.
Same thing. Show me an accident where "pilot error" was cited and the pilot was not lacking the required skills. It runs the gamut from not knowing what to do under certain circumstances (Colgan Air Dash 8 400) to failure to follow SOPs (Air Canada DC-8) to entering the wrong way-point and not realizing it resulted in a course that made no sense (757 in Cali Columbia) to a breakdown in CRM (747 in Tenerife) to not monitoring your fuel quantities (Air Transat in the Azores) to the pair who flew their CRJ into the coffin corner while all the warning systems in the airplane tried to stop them.

To be fair, SOPs were kind of loose back when that Air Canada DC-8 crashed and CRM didn't really exist as a serious notion back when that 747 captain acted like a total douche in Tenerife. And of course in many instances the pilot's inattention or failure to fly the airplane was just one of the mitigating causes to the accident.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Cat Driver »

Three pilots also watched Air France 447 fall about 37000 feet stalled......
---------- ADS -----------
  

bizjets101
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2105
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by bizjets101 »

Click Here (from YouTube)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0[/youtube]

This is a very accurate reconstruction of the crash of Asiana flight 214 at San Francisco Airport on July 6, 2013 with the exception of the post impact fire. It is now reported that the fire did not break out until 90 seconds after the aircraft came to rest. That adjustment will be made and re-posted this evening.

All times, speeds, distances and scaling contained are accurate to the data available as of July 10, 2013. There is also included in the segment a blue transparent exemplar aircraft programmed to follow the correct 3 degree glide slope to the intended touchdown point 1,000 ft down the marked runway. This is the path and altitude the Asiana flight should have been flying during the approach. Please note that the blue exemplar aircraft is not programmed to fly at the correct approach speed, only the correct altitude. If it were programmed to fly the correct approach speed it would very quickly pass the Asiana aircraft and disappear off screen. The reconstruction also contains the actual SFO tower communications with flight 214 although the actual timing of the communications may not be absolutely synchronized to the animation since the data necessary to precisely synch won't be available until it is released by the FAA or NTSB in the coming weeks.

This reconstruction will continue to be further refined and re-posted as new data becomes available.

If you have any questions regarding this animated reconstruction feel free to call Eyewitness Animations at (954) 941-2356 and ask for John. http://www.eyewitnessanimations.com
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Cat Driver »

CRM and SOP,s were in use in 1970 for sure because I flew for Mobil Oil then and we flew every flight under that system using multi crew.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by sky's the limit »

Well...

We have a Cap't with a supposed 9000hrs in automated heavy jets. He has had one accident based on an incredibly low skill level in "manual" (I use the term loosely) flight, and 8999.9hrs of safe flying. It would seem to indicate that despite his incompetence - and if the Avcanadians here are to be believed along with the posts by former heavy jet training pilots, he was very incompetent along with many of his co-workers - it is indeed an easy enough task to perform. That, or he is the luckiest pilot around for being able to pull it off so many times in the past.

Not a contradiction at all... in fact, quite the opposite.

That "pilots" with nothing other than automated jet time successfully complete countless take-off's and landings all over the globe daily (With what I'm sure we can all agree is a less than developed skill set in hand flying) in a system that depends on the very safety of its customers to survive, would further indicate that Cat's Arctic D3 skills, Ragbagflyer's Yukon off-strip skills, the Col's aerobatic prowess, CLguy's low-level bombing experience, or my mountain heli skills, are just not required in modern airliners. Again, seeing the term "pilot" was originally applied to those hand flying non-automated machinery, I stand by my statement that there needs to be a division in the classification for this new variety of machinery operated by a large number of people with a great deal less aviating experience than the average Canadian pilot King Air pilot would have, much less these other areas I have referred to.

Even within the US Air Force there was a massive rift between the Test "Pilots" of the 1950's and 1960's, and the guys sitting atop large rockets. From a piloting perspective, I would hazard a guess that taking an X-15 to the edge of space and back took a fair bit more skill than sitting in the Mercury capsules being catapulted into low orbit and riding a chute back down. Apparently they thought the same thing.

So, what shall we call these guys and gals? Cat's suggestion is a bit too wordy for me, we need something a little more catchy, two words max, or possibly an acronym? I'm drawing a blank so far. Come on, this could be fun...
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6484
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Post by Beefitarian »

To apply for STL's team I'd like to open my bid with. Strato-nots.

Because they ride the stratosphere and are not pilots.

Yeah, I know I'm probably even less qualified but that's why I'm a cook, maintenance guy and cleaner.
---------- ADS -----------
  

RB211
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:21 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by RB211 »

sky's the limit wrote:...

So, what shall we call these guys and gals? Cat's suggestion is a bit too wordy for me, we need something a little more catchy, two words max, or possibly an acronym? I'm drawing a blank so far. Come on, this could be fun...
Maybe we should leave the term pilot as is, but we could just call you 'super-hero'.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by sky's the limit »

RB211 wrote:
sky's the limit wrote:...

So, what shall we call these guys and gals? Cat's suggestion is a bit too wordy for me, we need something a little more catchy, two words max, or possibly an acronym? I'm drawing a blank so far. Come on, this could be fun...
Maybe we should leave the term pilot as is, but we could just call you 'super-hero'.

Naw, just a working stiff and no starched white shirt or anywhere near enough hair gel for that... :lol:

I'm sorry you're so threatened.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Flying Nutcracker
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:14 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Flying Nutcracker »

It's true what they told me... Airline-flying is 99% boredom, 1% Ho-Lee-Fuk. It is a problem that, for a profession where everything depends on proficiency for that 1%, there is not enough emphasis on training on "what's it doing now?". It's all about what it's doing when we pilots do it right...

I don't necessarily see this accident as solely lack of skill. I find it hard to believe that 3 pilots combined didn't have the skill to complete this flight safely. I think for anyone who have flown a swept-wing jet above a glidepath and with excess energy can attest to the fact that automation will not always produce the result necessary to accomplish what you want the airplane to do. As a result it is easier to level down the automation and do it yourself. But, in doing so you make yourself vulnerable to certain traps. It is my belief that this crew had to get down and slowed down. Vertical Speed is a way to manage this, but not necessarily the best one. As you get close to your target speed, but still above path, you don't want any thrust to reduce your rate of descend. Level Change is a good one. Although, F/D will target your set speed on the MCP so if you are fast it will give you a pitch up command.

As I see it, they where getting close to target path and speed around 1000-500'. PAPI's looking good, start pitching up, still with excess speed, thrust at idle. Start trimming as the airplane slows. Get below path, pitch up some more. Start drifting laterally, takes away attention to speed combined with a "bright light" distraction, and potentially still believing they were a little fast. It snowballs so quick. What happened below 500 feet is beyond me, but I firmly believe that they were focused on what was in front of them and not what was going on with the airplane. Just my belief. Not facts, just belief. Seen it unravel myself, but at a higher altitude.

When they realized what was going on, they did the correct thing. But, it was too late.

As to Helicopter flying... Flying helicopters in a versatile operation is by far the hardest flying from a perspective of constantly assessing what you are doing. Having said that, a helicopter pilot will use, lets say, 75% of his/her skills 100% of the time. An airline pilot will use 75% of said skills, 1% of the time. So you can flip it around and say that for an airline pilot it could be just as hard to actually do what is asked of him/her based on the overall proficiency level. Most of the time, an airline pilot gets everything delivered. Controlled environment. It's when the delivery-man doesn't show up and one has to figure things out yourself that things get really challenging. It's just not what we do. Stopping 100000+++ pounds of airplane on a contaminated runway, crappy weather, strong winds, low vis ops, CAT, Thunderstorms, fuel management, visual approaches... yes, I put it in there, visual approaches. We don't do it everyday, and everyday is a different challenge we probably haven't seen since last year...

So what can we do to mitigate this equation?

I am really curios to see the report when it's done. I hope it's not just lack of skills.

As far as a new name for "pilots" goes... I guess they sent a chimp to space...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Flying Nutcracker on Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by sky's the limit »

Flying Nutcracker wrote: Having said that, a helicopter pilot will use, lets say, 75% of his/her skills 100% of the time. An airline pilot will use 75% of said skills, 1% of the time. So you can flip it around and say that for an airline pilot it could be just as hard to actually do what is asked of him/her based on the overall proficiency level. Most of the time, an airline pilot gets everything delivered. Controlled environment. It's when the delivery-man doesn't show up and one has to figure things out yourself that things get really challenging.
Very good point. Never really thought of it that way. Great post.

(I still think the name game could be fun... care to lob one in there? Can't take all this too seriously you know..!)
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
bezerker
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: YXY

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by bezerker »

I might disagree with you STL.

What if you had a copilot in the helicopter with you for your last 9,000 hours (and your helicopter is an IFR type, such as S92 or AW139).

You never let him touch the controls. Ever. OK, once or twice a year on a calm wind VFR day you may let him manage the autopilot all the way to a hover above the landing spot and maybe even let him put it down by himself the last 50 feet.

So, 15-20 years go by and your monkey has his required 400 landings and 9,000 hours. He is ready to go Captain on paper so the company gives him his chance.

If in his first month he has to land at the top of the mountain at the ski lodge (which he has seen you do 100 times), there could be trouble.

I don't think getting from A to B is all that hard on a daily basis. I've flown with some guys that make it look easy, and others that seem to require multiple miracles to pull it off each time, yet continually manage to do so.

Same thing driving a car.

I don't know if "anyone" could manage to get in a wide body and safely fly from A to B. Even on a nice day. Sitting in the cockpit is the easy bit. There is a skill set there with regards to managing several hundred thousand pounds of airplane, passing a PPC, managing 30 crew members, complying with the reams of paperwork and regulations required to get an aircraft airborne, required knowledge of complex aircraft systems, etc.

There is a skill set required. This guy just didn't seem to have it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by sky's the limit »

bezerker wrote:I might disagree with you STL.

There is a skill set required. This guy just didn't seem to have it.
Never said there wasn't a skill set required. What I said was, that skill set is dramatically different to the traditional pilot's skill set. You AB139 example is perfect, as it DOES wonderfully highlight an issue in rotary operations now that automation has made its way into helicopters.

However, your example is simply transposing this FW issue into rotary - it's the same problem exactly except that in the rotary side that guy or girl may be asked after many thousands of hours of mundane flying, to land in a confined area, possibly at night, possibly in terrain, and they have just the bare minimum of ability and knowledge to do it. Same issue.

I think NutCracker's post was excellent, my only real comment on it is that there seems to be less and less emphasis put on certain skill sets in these automated machines in lieu of other skills that are required to simply operate or even just monitor them. Ergo how a visual approach was buggered so completely on the Asiana flight. One only needs to cruise YouTube these days to see endless loops of horrendous landings in crosswinds or even just normal conditions. Yes, we tend to be better here in Canada, but I have flown with some pretty suspect guys back in my FW days who are now Capt's at WJ or AC... And yes, you are right, we ARE seeing the same thing in rotary now too.

In fact, there has been a major move into more "operational control" of heli flights because of the Alberta Oil patch requirements (Data recorders, Cameras in the cockpit, microphones, alarms sent to the Boss based on arbitrary parameters). It is breeding an entire generation on pilots who never run rivers, never fly low, never play around and most importantly, never learn what their machine can, and cannot do. They are lost without GPS, and are not allowed to build skills that should be second nature by a few hundred hours. It is very frightening to see this trend. I believe it's similar but more extreme in the FW environment.

It's an interesting discussion for sure, and while some will get their knickers in a knot over it, I do believe it's worth while.
---------- ADS -----------
  

RB211
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:21 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by RB211 »

sky's the limit wrote:
RB211 wrote:
sky's the limit wrote:...

So, what shall we call these guys and gals? Cat's suggestion is a bit too wordy for me, we need something a little more catchy, two words max, or possibly an acronym? I'm drawing a blank so far. Come on, this could be fun...
Maybe we should leave the term pilot as is, but we could just call you 'super-hero'.

Naw, just a working stiff and no starched white shirt or anywhere near enough hair gel for that... :lol:

I'm sorry you're so threatened.
Not at all threatened.

A little surprised at the attitude that anyone flying a modern airliner should not be considered a pilot because you have unilaterally decided they can't fly.

When I hear of a helicopter crash that involves pilot error, labeling all chopper pilots incompetent doesn't enter my mind.

At all levels of this industry there are great pilots and below average pilots. Most, however, do a safe, professional job, confirmed by the thousands of flights a day that don't make the news.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
bezerker
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: YXY

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by bezerker »

STL,

You had stated that the guy had pulled off this task many times in a row in the past, so that meant with his skill set he was either lucky, or the task was easy.

I just wanted to point out that from what I know of the event (100% reliable 2nd hand Internet information), the pilot was not experienced or skilled in the task he was asked to perform.

I believe that companies have been putting guys at the bottom of the experience/skill tree in positions that they are not ready for yet for years.

My experience has been that it was guys put in the left seat of a Navajo before they were quite ready or going left seat on the Lear with a few hours less than Contrail requirements. CP knows that first few trips will be a real $hit show but hopefully the issues are things like "flooded the engine when starting" or "put the red wine in the fridge instead of the white wine" and not "forgot to put the gear down" or "CFIT".

It is sad to see that this has progressed to 777's and that companies are upgrading guys now that they hope will keep it together for the first year and only make minor mistakes.

It is a hell of a gamble in my opinion. (And by that I mean for both PA31 and 777 pilots upgraded before they are competent).
---------- ADS -----------
  

pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: A mile final 24 CYSN

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by pdw »

Flying Nutcracker wrote:As I see it, they where getting close to target path and speed around 1000-500'. PAPI's looking good, start pitching up, still with excess speed, thrust at idle. Start trimming as the airplane slows. Get below path, pitch up some more. Start drifting laterally, takes away attention to speed combined with a "bright light" distraction, and potentially still believing they were a little fast. It snowballs so quick. What happened below 500 feet is beyond me, but I firmly believe that they were focused on what was in front of them and not what was going on with the airplane. Just my belief. Not facts, just belief. Seen it unravel myself, but at a higher altitude.

When they realized what was going on, they did the correct thing. But, it was too late.
This is correct. (thrust obviously no longer set to maintain "137kts" of airspeed automatically)

The way it sounded ... after being too high ... it was "drifting laterally" that became the distraction, before the (sun) light distraction.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by BTD »

Do people not watch the ntsb briefings.

The captain had been a captain on the a320 for the previous 5 years. If that person does not have the experience to be a 777 captain they shouldn't be a 320 captain either.

Pinning it on his lack of experience is foolish since he was one of 3 pilots in the flight deck. The instructor pilot had by his estimate 13000 hrs and and 3000 on the 777 and the relief first officer had 4700 hrs and 1000 approx on the 777.

What ever this accident was, it wasn't due to an inexperienced crew. Incompetent perhaps, I don't know but not inexperienced in the operation.

Watch the ntsb briefings on YouTube.
---------- ADS -----------
  

sky's the limit
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by sky's the limit »

RB, take some time to read this thread, it's your cohort here who has labelled most heavy jet pilots from a very large region of the planet as, "incompetent," not to mention emasculating the Air France crews who crashed in the Atlantic and overran YYZ a few years back... Nothing unilateral in it, sorry. And yes, there are many incompetent helicopter pilots too, poorly trained, and lacking in experience for the task at hand. It is a big issue, and one that is growing by the year. The only problem is they don't tend to live as long, or they get weeded out much earlier in the process, and they certainly don't end up in the mountains for very long, if at all... there aren't the places to hide that there are in airplanes, although there are a few.

Let's turn this around then, just to show I am not set in my thinking: It's apparent that airline folk are the real pilots, I get it... so let's come up with a name for people like me, or maybe the career float crowd on the West Coast, maybe the crop dusters too, because what we do has nothing in common with what you do, besides being above the ground. If you can't poke a little fun at yourself, then what's the point? Seriously, what's it take to loosen anyone up on here anymore???

Bezerker,

You're telling me that this fellow had neither the skills nor the experience to land that airplane on a visual approach, despite 9000hrs sitting in one after flying other heavy jets (from what I gather) and countless sim sessions? There were also two other pilots on that flight deck, were none of them qualified to be there? Should that be the case, then we have a more serious problem than a goofy nomenclature game suggested in jest... They sent him over an ocean with a couple hundred people because "companies have been putting guys at the bottom of the experience/skill tree in positions that they are not ready for yet for years." Really? This isn't the northern bush we're discussing here, the stakes are somewhat higher.

Q: How many of the Flt Instructor to King Air F/O's, to King Air Capt's, to career WJ or AC F/O's who get so thoroughly lambasted on here almost daily by the Avcan experts are "qualified" in your opinion? I'm interested as my shift is nearly over and I have to fly home tomorrow. Or is this just another case of something that "only happens to them," and there's nothing to take from this here?


-------------------------------------------

Fine, fine, I see my naming game has gone over like a lead balloon despite Beef and Cat giving it a valiant stab.... So now that I've stirred up the nest, can someone please tell me exactly who IS qualified, skilled, doing the job they are trained for, and safe across the board? I fly a LOT to get to work in everything from the biggest airliners to Navaho's and float plans, and yes, even a Comanche recently - who is safe and why? I'm am asking in all seriousness as a customer now.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by CID »

Cat Driver wrote:CRM and SOP,s were in use in 1970 for sure because I flew for Mobil Oil then and we flew every flight under that system using multi crew.
I didn't state they weren't in use. Read about that DC-8 crash. No respect for SOPs. And CRM concepts today are much different. There have been a few major shifts in CRM ideologies over the years.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by CID »

Cat Driver wrote:Three pilots also watched Air France 447 fall about 37000 feet stalled......
MUCH different story.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: A mile final 24 CYSN

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by pdw »

The last 5 hits on flightaware reveal speed (not airspeed), all made with-in that last minute of "11:27" not including the actual impact, late 11:27. Not sure about accurracy there ...

The first 2 hits of those 5 show speed only 145kts to 141kts while down 200ft in the interval. The next few seconds that speed drops like a rock, in relation. IMO an elite surface WX analysis would show it's where the aircraft enters the colder air moving very slowly off the ocean from the south, exiting the dryer layer above (very little cloud / little moisture) and from another direction. Previously the descent is going well as airspeed is dropping with a sensible amount of altitude lost, after having been high and fast on speed (energy) and airspeed.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Flying Nutcracker
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:14 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Flying Nutcracker »

pdw wrote:The last 5 hits on flightaware reveal speed (not airspeed), all made with-in that last minute of "11:27" not including the actual impact, late 11:27. Not sure about accurracy there ...

The first 2 hits of those 5 show speed only 145kts to 141kts while down 200ft in the interval. The next few seconds that speed drops like a rock, in relation. IMO an elite surface WX analysis would show it's where the aircraft enters the colder air moving very slowly off the ocean from the south, exiting the dryer layer above (very little cloud / little moisture) and from another direction. Previously the descent is going well as airspeed is dropping with a sensible amount of altitude lost, after having been high and fast on speed (energy) and airspeed.
With all due respect, I believe what you are referring to is what happens when a swept-wing jet gets on the back side of the power-curve. It rises sharply below L/D max and you really don't want to be there!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”