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

Post Reply
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 »

SheriffPatGarrett wrote: That a real pilotless airplane like CID is advocating, the nec plus ultra, captured by these Mullahs...wanna ride?
That single line speaks volumes about the clash of cultures on this thread. And I don't mean the clash of any ethnic cultures like the aforementioned (and others) are still trying to push. I mean of the complete lack of understanding of the differences between large modern airlines and other aircraft in the industry.

No, I did not advocate pilotless aircraft in this thread. Certainly not for current technology airliners. I did however strongly make the case for a high degree of automation in large commercial airliners. Unfortunately, Mr. Garrett, you don't seen to be able to wrap your mind around the difference.

Anyone flying an aircraft should not only be capable, but HIGHLY proficient in the operation of their aircraft. Especially if they are flying commercially. In comparison, I don't expect a low time guy who is building hours on his 152 to be "highly" proficient but he/she is arguably participating in a much lower risk activity.

Now comes to hard part for some of you old timers. If you can fly a 777 with a high level of proficiency, that doesn't mean you can fly an aerobatic circuit in a Pitts at an air show. It doesn't mean that you could fly a Twin Otter on a lake side esker in the arctic. It doesn't mean that you would have a clue about flying on floats or flying water bombers or know what to do when your piston twin loses an engine.

That may have been in the case in the past but you don't just "fly" a 777. You operate it. A 777 is one of the most capable airplanes in the world. By that I mean it can move a great deal of people, at a very high speed, over very large distances over very unforgiving environments. Crossing the north pole is a daily occurrence for many 777s. And it’s all done with two crewmembers. Obviously more to account for long crossings to account for fatigue and duty cycles.

To achieve all that, a great deal of technology is incorporated. A VERY high degree of automation is used to effectively reduce the work load to the capabilities of the flight crew. A VERY high degree of reliability for those systems is imposed so that the probability of a failure that would increase the workload to a level where the flightcrew would have difficulty handling is very low.

That is the automation angle that I brought to the discussion. These pilots are trained for the aircraft they are flying. Not a turbo-Otter, not a Cessna 172, not even a 737.

So how on earth could these pilot’s crash a perfectly serviceable aircraft and cause all this calamity? Based on the information at hand, it was caused by a mistake. A “pilot error” is what we usually call it. Not a “Korean” pilot error. Not an “Asian” pilot error. Simply “pilot” error.

Many accidents have been documented where pilot error resulted in deaths of passengers over the years. Many were flown by “white” pilots. I would hazard a guess that the majority of large airliner accidents over the years were piloted by “white” pilots. So why the whole “culture” thing?

Many of the remarks regarding culture come from good ol’ North American pilots who seem to have more difficulty with understanding the ethnic culture of the pilots they are hired to train than with what they are training them on. No Captain UAL, you are not training them to fly a Beech 1900 between Chicago and Springfield.

The bottom line is that it would be near impossible to operate an aircraft like the 777 with two crew members without a VERY HIGH degree of automation. And no…..automation does not equal “autopilot”. It’s much broader than that.
Cat Driver wrote: Game boy masters?
Another very simple statement that speaks volumes. Did you know that most “older” folks wouldn’t be able to operate a Gameboy? Back when VCRs were in vogue many older airline pilots couldn’t program them or even set the time. It’s nothing new. When TVs were introduced, there was a learning curve. Same with automobiles.

How about FMCs? Many of those guys “let” the youngsters in the right seat program the FMC during their last few years until they could retire gracefully. It's very difficult to teach old dogs (and cats) new tricks. New systems and higher levels of automation all result in more training. Sometimes the training affects very fundamental long standing principals. Imagine all the angst felt by captains when CRM was introduced.

The “culture” is changing. It is constantly changing and will continue to change. Some can adapt, some can't. The 777 is not your grandfather’s airplane.
---------- 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 »

Depends on SOP... our Boeing SOP, which I figure would be the norm, is to have the AT off when the AP is off which is also what the Boeing FCOM recommends... others may differ.
Depends on the model. Some auto-throttle systems are little more than cruise control and MUST be off below the prescribed altitude. Others are approved for operation from take-off to touchdown and roll out. The 777 has a full flight regime system that can stay on all the time. It's an awesome system for reducing workload in a busy cockpit.

I was actually on a Boeing that didn't have a full regime AT system and witnessed a very similar situation as the accident aircraft in this discussion. The pilot thought the AT was still on and the airspeed decayed. It got a little lower than was comfortable before the PF manually added power. There was a little delay in responding because of a coinciding distraction.

It happens. My experience turned out much more positively than the Asiana 777 however.

Although I see room for additional training, I see some holes in the automation here. The TAWS system wasn't very helpful because the glideslope wasn't in operation and many of the other TAWS modes were dormant due to their flight configuration and position. There is also the question of proper annunciation of AT engagement. It would be difficult for the current systems to account for a situation where the aircraft is configured to land and speed is decaying at about the correct geographical location. Should there perhaps be an automated airspeed callouts starting at 1000 AGL to replace the PNF's vocalizations during approach? Maybe they could be voiced right after the altitude callout. "FIVE HUNDRED....PLUS 20".

Yah I know....some pilots would say "awesome" and an equal number would lament how we got to this level of incompetence.
---------- ADS -----------
 
chinglish
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:19 pm

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

Post by chinglish »

FICU wrote:
pdw wrote:Is there a surface analysis available for the hour of the accident ?

Nevermind sunshine, there still can be some windshear...
Actually, you should be looking into the USGS and shifts in the San Andreas fault. Your windshear theory could have been due to the air being displaced by the subtle but recorded movement of the pacific plate pushing up on the NA plate precisely at the time of this incident.
Thank you! After reading this painful thread I needed that
---------- ADS -----------
 
FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

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

Post by FICU »

RB211 wrote:From the 777 FCTM:
Autothrottle Use

Autothrottle use is recommended during all phases of flight. When in manual flight, autothrottle use is also recommended, however manual thrust control may be used to maintain pilot proficiency.
Interesting to see if that changes as a NTSB recommendation after this accident or if Boeing does it on it's own.
---------- ADS -----------
 
RB211
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:21 pm

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

Post by RB211 »

FICU wrote:
RB211 wrote:From the 777 FCTM:
Autothrottle Use

Autothrottle use is recommended during all phases of flight. When in manual flight, autothrottle use is also recommended, however manual thrust control may be used to maintain pilot proficiency.
Interesting to see if that changes as a NTSB recommendation after this accident or if Boeing does it on it's own.
I don't see why it should change unless it was a direct causal reason for the crash. Which I highly doubt.

The system when used as designed and intended works just fine in my experience.

Mismanagement of an airplane and its energy can happen with or without the automatics. Improper procedures, procedures not followed, CRM issues, general skills weakness can all negate the safe design of an airplane.

In time we will learn what the primary and contributing factors of this crash were. In the mean time I am more than comfortable operating the airplane as Boeing has thus far directed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

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

Post by PilotDAR »

A “pilot error” is what we usually call it. ..... Simply “pilot” error.
Or perhaps a pilot lacking the required skills. I think there is no excuse for a pilot not to be able to hand fly a power on or power off landing in the type of aircraft they regularly fly. I recall three remarkably successful power off landings of large twin engined jetliners. In each case, I recall the pilot crediting his flying or gliding experience in lighter aircraft. Perhaps there is a message there.

No, I don't expect the 777 pilot to also be competent flying aerobatics in a Pitts. If there are, so much the better, but not required. Just be competent flying the type you fly. Being a pilot is like being a tree - there are all types, many very different to the others, and that's okay. They all do go up from the earth though! One pilot or tree cannot be all things.

That said, and with an admittedly poor knowledge of GA flying in Asia, I wonder if there are the same opportunities for GA flying as recreation (and skills freshener) for airline pilots in Asia. If there is little opportunity, that would affect the pilot's basic skills.

I opine that pilots who start directly into the "commercial" training stream may bypass the in depth training on light aircraft which homes these basic flying skills. Having never really learned it well anyway, and then with no opportunity to maintain those skills, and automated aircraft which do not normally demand them, a bad situation is perpetuated....
---------- 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 »

When I owned my advanced flying training business a lot of my clients were airline pilots.

Generally speaking they were a bit rusty in their basic manual airplane handling skills but quickly got back in the grove and combined with their airline training and their dedication to following SOP's and understanding the reason for SOP's they were excellent pilots.

Maybe someone should start a school for airline pilots that offers recurrent basic hands and feet flying along with recurrent sim training on the equipment they are flying for the airline.....in other words basic hands and feet flying in a basic aircraft should be part of recurrent training for airline pilots.

The cost for an airline would be minimal if the training were done at the bases where sim training is done.
---------- 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 »

sky's the limit wrote:I must admit, I'm beginning to fail to understand how the word "Pilot" applies in modern airliners anymore...
I'll explain it in pictures and analogy for you:

If we were sailors, this would be your vessel:
rush big brother.jpg
rush big brother.jpg (587.21 KiB) Viewed 1665 times

This would be the airliner:

Image

This would be Cat Driver's Ship:

Image

This would be Asiana:

Image



There, fixed it for you.
---------- 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 »

There, fixed it for you.
I was originally going to go for something like that, but I figured what you fly had at least one engine to manage.
---------- 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 »

mcrit wrote:
There, fixed it for you.
I was originally going to go for something like that, but I figured what you fly had at least one engine to manage.

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."
---------- 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 »

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: 6605
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 -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”