A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

[RB211]

Sorry but with all do respect, PDW, either you have been drinking or I haven't been drinking enough because I really don't understand what you are on about.

[7thirtyseven]

The shit kicking PDW is getting is just another example of the infantile nature of most pilots in general Perhaps, many folks here cannot relate the cultural bias with a delayed clearance .( Certain cultures can get uppity and excited over little things , like landing clearance,,,Ever been to Italy? ) Some pilots here need to GROW UP!

In my little life experience people who yell "GROW UP" are usually middleschool girls struggling with hormones they just cant control.... I think most of us are beyond that (not much). PDWs posts are a continuing source of amusement to many, and a revelation of an oddly functioning reasoning process to most. Seriously If someone cant fly a 777 without obsessing about landing clearances, they need to find another line of work, like accounting. Or putting cans on shelves. Or dental hygenist. Or laundry dude in a hotel.
DONT TELL US TO GROW UP ANYMORE, ITS NOT ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO POST ON AVCANADA, NEITHER IS INTELLIGENCE, OR KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

[confuzed]

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=465e38db&opt=1


Wow, another one that had issues in SFO.

[FICU]

If not yet "cleared to land" because not understood, it would become a serious concern to the crew on short final ... not ATC.

No it wouldn't... if you are not sure you simply ask, "tower, confirm XXX cleared to land rwy XX". Many times I have been on final and asked my partner if we were cleared to land and if we weren't 100% sure we would ask tower. Even on short final asking tower for landing clearance is no big deal and as stated earlier... in the US particularly, you get a landing clearance on initial contact with tower... "number 3... cleared to land".

[Old Dog Flying]

One day while a father and young son are standing by the perimeter fence watching the aircraft take-off and land, the father feels a tug at his sleeve. Looking down at the boy he asks, " Yes Johnny what is it?".

Johnny looks up and replies, "Daddy when I GROW up I want to be a PILOT!"

The father smiles and says












Johnny , make up your mind..You can't do both!"

[jpilot77]

https://www.wwgp1050.com/2013/07/29/faa ... francisco/

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/F ... 692348.php

Wonder if Canadian airlines fall under this.

[CID]

https://www.wwgp1050.com/2013/07/29/faa ... francisco/

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/F ... 692348.php

Wonder if Canadian airlines fall under this.

And the irony? Last week a Southwest Airlines pilot screwed up a visual/manual landing royally. He was too high and pushed the nose down to try to recover instead of going around. The result was a busted nose gear and several dozen pairs of ruined underwear. Could have been much worse.

So should the advisory apply to Southwest too?

[CpnCrunch]

https://www.wwgp1050.com/2013/07/29/faa ... francisco/

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/F ... 692348.php

Wonder if Canadian airlines fall under this.

This is what is known as "polishing shit".

Anyway, it's up to passengers to decide whether or not they want to fly on an airline where the pilots aren't proficient in visual approaches.

And the irony? Last week a Southwest Airlines pilot screwed up a visual/manual landing royally. He was too high and pushed the nose down to try to recover instead of going around. The result was a busted nose gear and several dozen pairs of ruined underwear. Could have been much worse.

So should the advisory apply to Southwest too?

Perhaps Southwest need to revise their stabilized approach height. Anyway, I think the point is that Southwest pilots regularly do visual approaches, whereas certain other airlines don't. Even when you're trained to do something you can sometimes screw it up. How much more likely is that when you're not even trained in the first place?

[pdw]

.... I really don't understand what you are on about.

My goal is to fully understand why it slowed down so far without them noticing, ... lightly loaded in the CAVU weather.

The accident report will inform us when released, but there's no negotiating the final word (ie discussing WX etc) once out.

Also like to know how legalizing GPS approach would prevent this type of accident. I guess with encouraging go-arounds the GPS approach comes in handy (helps ATC) for managing missed approaches ?

[CID]

Also like to know how legalizing GPS approach would prevent this type of accident. I guess with encouraging go-arounds the GPS approach comes in handy (helps ATC) for managing missed approaches

GPS approach is illegal?? Someone better tell....everyone.

Not only have NPA GPS approaches been "legal" for over a decade, there are now many published LPV and GLS precision approaches that are done with GPS.

[Driving Rain]

There are a couple of restrictions on GPS approaches ...If your system is a TSO-C129, any required alternate must have an approved instrument procedure other than GPS, and of course your aircraft must have the appropriate equipment for the approach. If you have approved WAAS avionics, you may plan to use any instrument approach authorized for use with WAAS avionics at a required alternate. You must use the LNAV minima line for planning purposes in case vertical guidance is not available.

[CID]

Driving Rain, your point is moot on a visual approach. You don't have to hand-bomb a visual approach. You can set up an LPV or GLS (if equipped) and fly a stabilized approach down to the AFCS minimums if you wanted to.

If it was IFR and the ILS is out and you have a C129 GPS then you have something but that's not the case. The "authorities" are suggesting that "foreign" pilots can't fly a manual stabilized approach and with no ILS they are suggesting a GPS "precision" approach I assume. Not a C129 NPA. SFO has a few RNAV approaches with published LPV minima. I don't understand why they didn't set up for that rather than hand fly it regardless of their cultural leanings.

[pdw]

GPS approach is illegal?? Someone better tell....everyone.

O.K. Sounded at first like that advisory 'made it mandatory' (for KFSO). So were they using it ?

... and somewhere must have been a low airspeed alarm.

[FICU]

The primary alarm should have been the PM or observer although an unusually high angle of attack should have also been a sign and the final alarm would have been the stick shaker.

[shimmydampner]

Yeah, right after LOOKING OUT THE EFFING WINDOW and realizing, "Oh shit! We're gonna miss that giant runway that we've been able to clearly see for miles!"

[shimmydampner]

"If only there was some way for us as pilots to control the engines' thrust and if only this damn airplane had moveable surfaces at its extremities that we as the pilots could manipulate in concert with that thrust in order to alter the aircraft's orientation and trajectory through space!"

[RB211]

There is much discussion about visual approaches as related to this incident/accident.

SFO use visual approaches to maximise the traffic handled. They can use less space for landing on both runways than if they use IFR approach criteria. Even if the ILS had been on the air, with the weather conditions of the day, they would still issue visual approaches.

Once cleared for and accepted, ATC doesn't really care how you carry out the approach. If the ILS is on, use it. In the case of 28L, there is an RNAV (GPS) approach published which provides a very nice VNAV Path as reference. Use it.

The talk of what aids were available, ATC procedures and the functionality of the aircraft, specifically the A/T system, as reasons for this accident are really secondary issues. As far as we know right now, all the tools were available to successfully complete the approach. Maybe the final report will reveal some new issues.

The two more significant items that will likely be discussed are CRM and aircraft handling.

To me, of those two items, it is an issue of energy management and adhering to stabilisation criteria. The larger the airplane the greater the inertia. This becomes a significant factor when correcting a high/fast profile. Getting 'down" and 'slowing down' at the same time can be a challenge. It also means it can quickly become 'low and slow' if mishandled. That is why Boeing discusses the stabilisation criteria in the FCTM. In VMC, if you do not meet the criteria by 500', then it is time to go around and do it again. Good CRM should have intervened by this point.

Stabilized Approach Recommendations from Boeing:

Stabilized Approach Recommendations

Maintaining a stable speed, descent rate, and vertical/lateral flight path in landing
configuration is commonly referred to as the stabilized approach concept.
Any significant deviation from planned flight path, airspeed, or descent rate
should be announced. The decision to execute a go-around is no indication of poor
performance.

Note: Do not attempt to land from an unstable approach.

Recommended Elements of a Stabilized Approach

The following recommendations are consistent with criteria developed by the
Flight Safety Foundation.
All approaches should be stabilized by 1,000 feet AFE in instrument
meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet AFE in visual meteorological
conditions (VMC). An approach is considered stabilized when all of the following
criteria are met:
• the airplane is on the correct flight path
• only small changes in heading and pitch are required to maintain the
correct flight path
• the airplane should be at approach speed. Deviations of +10 knots to – 5
knots are acceptable if the airspeed is trending toward approach speed
• the airplane is in the correct landing configuration
• sink rate is no greater than 1,000 fpm; if an approach requires a sink rate
greater than 1,000 fpm, a special briefing should be conducted
• thrust setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration
• all briefings and checklists have been conducted.

I underlined for emphasis.

We can all, especially after a long day/night, get behind the 8 ball on the approach. It is recognising things are not right and making the safe decision that is vital.

[RB211]

Looks like problem solved!

FAA Places Restrictions on Foreign Pilots Landing at San Francisco

Posted 2013-07-29 03:30:21

Ezra Shaw/Getty Images
(SAN FRANCISCO) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is no longer allowing visual approach landings at San Francisco International Airport to foreign airlines landing there, ABC News has learned.

“Apparently the FAA is seeing that foreign carriers are not able to handle this visual approach at SFO and they're no longer allowing anybody except U.S. crews to hand fly approaches into SFO," says ABC News aviation consultant Col. Steve Ganyard.

Ganyard says the new policy is no doubt a result of the July 6 Asiana Airlines crash landing in which three people died.

The Boeing 777, which originated in Seoul, South Korea, was carrying 291 passengers and 16 crew members when it crash-landed on the airport runway and burst into flames.

The National Transportation Safety Board has not yet determined the cause of the crash. However, investigators have said Flight 214 was flying "significantly below" its target speed during approach when the crew tried to abort the landing just before the plane crashed onto the runway.

Ganyard says the policy change is also in response to an increase in "go arounds" by foreign crews landing at the airport.

“Apparently in the past couple weeks we've seen more of these visual approaches that have not gone as well as they should have and these aircraft have done what's called waving off, which means they go around...bring up the gear and they go around and they try again,” he says.

Ganyard notes that the FAA is only focusing on foreign carriers, not U.S. carriers: “They're saying they’re only seeing these problems with foreign carriers which raises the question: Are foreign carriers trained to the degree they need to be to fly within U.S. airspace?”

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

[YYZSaabGuy]

A slightly different take on the FAA response in this story from Air Traffic Management (see http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/201 ... pproaches/. The headline may be misleading - the story below characterizes it as a recommendation to use RNAV approaches, not an outright ban on visuals.

FAA bans foreign pilots from visual approaches at SFO
Posted on July 30, 2013 by Aimee Turner

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is reported to have advised all foreign airlines to use a GPS system instead of visual approaches when landing at San Francisco International Airport in the wake of the Asiana Airlines crash.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports the FAA has issued a recommendation that the airlines use the GPS system when landing on main runways instead of relying on just their eyes and cockpit instruments.

Pilots on Asiana Airlines Flight 214 had been cleared to make a visual approach when the Boeing 777-200ER aircraft crash-landed on a runway at the San Francisco airport July 6. Three girls died, and 180 people were injured.

The FAA says that since then, pilots for Asiana and other foreign carriers have had more aborted landings than usual while trying to make visual approaches. The agency didn’t provide exact numbers.

Typically, pilots would use visual approaches if the weather was clear, or they would use an instrument system known as a glide slope indicator to help them land.

However, the glide slope indicator has been out of service since June 1 due to an expansion project and is not scheduled to be available again until August 22.

The GPS-based instrument system, known as RNAV, is an alternative, and the FAA decided to make the temporary change “out of an abundance of caution,” the agency said in a statement.

The Asiana Airlines crash is under investigation, and it’s unclear exactly how its pilots – who had been cleared for a visual approach – tried to land. Federal investigators said the plane was flying far too slowly when it crashed, with the pilots reporting that they believed they had engaged an automatic throttle.

[raven54]

I don't even know what to say about the above. Really??? Wow...not the dreaded visual approach!!!!