A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

[xsbank]

Thats all true, Nutty, well said, but if there were actually 6 eyes in the cockpit you would assume that there was collectively at least one brain, total.
I did something as harebrained as this, I got way below the power curve the very first time I flew the 747 simulator, but that was training, where you're supposed to make all the mistakes. Not when you've presumably completed your Captain's check with high marks and are flying under supervision after having done approaches to all your likely destinations, in the sim. Even if the training captain was in the left seat, this accident stinks.
That aircraft, at the end of its journey, even with 300 people on board would have had no problem doing a MAPP as it would be very light on fuel.
I wonder if we're beginning to se the results of the crappy conditions in aviation, where the demand is high to put pilots in seats but many of them are overworked and badly paid.

[Old fella]

May I ask a silly question(as a person with no experience in airline operations, let alone on that ac type). Understand PAPI was serviceable and operational, being that low because the tail impacted ground prior to threshold, would the PF be looking at a lot of red and if so shouldn't that be some sort of clue.

Just asking!

[Flying Nutcracker]

Don't get me wrong... I am not sugarcoating this. I am also not drawing my own conclusions until all the facts are all there. All I am saying is that pilot-error goes beyond just plain stupidity. Stink is a good description. It really stinks!

Maybe we have a stronger culture in our parts of the world where there is no risk of hurting someone's pride when you speak up...

As far as PAPI's go... 200 foot long airplane with a high angle of attack you could still see some white...

[bizjets101]

Whoa ... 3 seconds to impact - last recorded airspeed 103 knots, engines at 50 percent power with power increasing.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

There is a rumor the Altimeter may not have been reset from 29.92 at cruise. The field Altimeter Setting was 29.81. An altimeter error of -.1 would put them 100ft low, and 1000ft short. ( If they were flying an electronic generated glide slope, it would take them to the Sea Wall. ) ?? A VFR approach shouldn't have that problem.

Not true. Whether they were flying an ILS Glideslope or an VNAV generated descent profile, it would have taken them to the correct place regardless of altimeter settting. The only thing they might notice is that the waypoint crossing heights don't match what their altimeter says if the altimeter is set wrong. But as somebody above said, it's VERY difficult to forget to transition in a 777. They would've had to both actually set the same wrong altimeter setting at transition as opposed to just forgetting to do it. And it would've had to be the same error for both of them. If the Captain and FO have different altimeter settings set, you get a message.

From today's NTSB briefing:

Vref: 137kts
1600': A/P disengaged
1400': speed 170 kts
1000': 149 kts
500': 134 kts
200': 118 kts
125': 112kts - initiation of power increase
3 secs before impact - minimum recorded speed of 103 kts

A couple of points based on that: It would seem the autothrottle was also disengaged (unlikely the speed would have decayed so much if the A/T was engaged). I don't know if this is Asiana procedure when the A/P is disengaged or if they were practicing a manual thrust landing as part of the captain's line training. Other airlines I know of usually leave the A/T engaged when hand flying on the 777.
They were 25kts below Vref (and probably 30kts below target approach speed) before any increase in power! WTF? The vicinity of 112 kts is probably where they would get the Airspeed Low EICAS caution message. I wonder if the application of power was in response to that.
At 1400' they were really fast (probably should've abandoned the approach here) which is likely why the thrust was idle all the way down instead of a normal approach setting. Seems like somebody forgot to bring the the thrust back up to a normal setting once the speed decayed to where it should've been.

[Mr. North]

FAA Advises Asiana Airlines Pilot To Get Back Out There After Crash
'You Don’t Want To Lose Your Confidence,' Agency Says

NEWS IN BRIEF • Travel • News • ISSUE 49•28 • Jul 8, 2013

WASHINGTON—Claiming that such incidents can “really mess with your head if you’re not careful,” Federal Aviation Administration officials on Monday urged Lee Kang-kook, the Asiana Airlines pilot who crash-landed a commercial airliner at San Francisco International Airport last weekend, to get back out there and start flying again. “The more you dwell on this one crash, the more you’ll start second-guessing yourself, so the best thing to do right now is to just put last Saturday behind you, get back into the cockpit, and find your wings again, bud,” FAA head Michael Huerta told Kang-kook, stressing that for the sake of his confidence, right now would be “the absolute worst time to quit.” “You think every pilot is perfect at flying these Boeing 777s right away? You just have to accept that these crashes are part and parcel of the learning process and not let one bad landing get in your head. You’ll only get better with more practice. After all, how are you ever going to get better if you quit now, ya big goof?” Huerta added that it would be “a real shame” for Kang-kook to give up now, since he is still only 11 flights away from getting his license to fly 777 aircrafts.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/faa-ad ... out,33049/

..ohhh sorry I had too!

[Flying Nutcracker]

A/P disengaged at 1600'. My question is what mode was it in when they disengaged it and where were the speedbrakes?

[short bus]

Flaps extended with speedbrakes deployed is most likely a no-no. at least it is on another boeing.

[share-once]

not all Boeings are equal

[short bus]

Hence the use of "most likely".

[Donald]

On Jul 8th 2013 the NTSB reported the pilots' flight bags and charts were located, the proper (approach) charts for San Francisco Airport were in place at the cockpit. There were 4 pilots on board of the aircraft, they are being interviewed on Jul 8th, which will be determine who was pilot flying and who was in command at the time of the approach. The cockpit was documented and the switch positions identified. Both engines were delivering power at time of impact consistent with the flight data recordings, the right hand engine found adjacent to the fuselage showed evidence of high rotation at impact, the left hand engine liberated from the aircraft also showed high rotation at impact. The aircraft joined a 17nm final, the crew reported the runway in sight before being handed off to tower. The autopilot was disconnected at 1600 feet 82 seconds prior to impact, the aircraft descended through 1400 feet at 170 KIAS 73 seconds prior to impact, descended through 1000 feet at 149 KIAS 54 seconds, 500 feet at 134 KIAS 34 seconds, 200 feet at 118 KIAS 16 seconds prior to impact. At 125 feet and 112 KIAS the thrust levers were advanced and the engines began to spool up 8 seconds prior to impact, the aircraft reached a minimum speed of 103 KIAS 3 seconds prior to impact, the engines were accelerating through 50% engine power at that point, and accelerated to 106 knots. The vertical profile needs to be assessed first. There was debris from the sea wall thrown several hundred feet towards the runway, part of the tailcone is in the sea wall, a significant portion of the tail is ahead of the sea wall in the water.

17 mile final with the runway in sight? Unless they were significantly higher than 5000 feet above TDZE, so much for ATC leaving them "high and dry".

[Colonel Sanders]

the aircraft descended through:
1400 feet at 170 KIAS 73 seconds prior to impact,
1000 feet at 149 KIAS 54 seconds,
500 feet at 134 KIAS 34 seconds,
200 feet at 118 KIAS 16 seconds prior to impact.
At 125 feet and 112 KIAS the thrust levers were advanced and the engines began to spool up 8 seconds prior to impact,
the aircraft reached a minimum speed of 103 KIAS 3 seconds prior to impact,
the engines were accelerating through 50% engine power at that point, and
accelerated to 106 knots

I guess that's what some people call a "stablized approach".

This guy might have spent lots of time watching the aircraft
fly itself, but that's a real newbie mistake - especially for a
HUGE aircraft with that much momentum.

The trend of the airspeed - derivative with respect to
time - is king. Non-zero values are greatly concerning - hence
the emphasis on the value of a stabilized approach, and the
need to overshoot if it is not attained.

I can't imagine anyone receiving a type rating in a jet without
understanding that.

[bananaskins767]

Several of you guys have mentioned Visual Approaches not being suitable for heavy aircraft....XSbank used the term "suicidal".

Sorry but thats bullshit! I've been doing visuals in aircraft such as the 767 and 747 for over 20 years and it's not suicdal and moreover, it is a measure of one's ability to handle an aircraft without being led by the nose by all the facilities available such as an ILS-DME and PAPI lights. In fact I did an visual approach into Lagos recently in order to expedite the landing rather than join a long line of pussy's in a line up and the fucking FO damn near shit himself until he saw how it is done, both safely and economically. His being Pakistani pretty much explains his overall lack of understanding of basic flying skills. You lot, I expect more out of.

Of course you should use aids available to you, when they are available. Nobody with any sense can argue that. But you should be able to do an approach without them and still land safely and be on target during the entire approach. If you dispute this last sentence then I suggest you go back to the kitchen and continue to help mom with the baking.

Now lets bring up the subject of race as I did in a previous paragraph. Korean pilots have never set the world on fire when it comes to ability or basic understanding and they are further hampered by their fucking cultural beliefs such as .."The Captain is like God(No I don't believe in God! hahaha) and always right...Such garbage! Yes I have the right to say this of them since I've been flying in Asia for more than 20 odd years. Few of them should even have the right to fly passengers.

I think fatigue is likely a possible explanation for their @#$! up. Not an excuse by any measure, but a possibility. Combine fatigue with a lack of experience plus a lack of overall ability and you have a very good chance of disaster. The fact that these aircraft are so easy to fly is the reason this doesn't happen more often.

Now I welcome any of you experts out there to dispute what I've just said here! Lets see what crap some of you come up with in response to my statements put forth for your entertainment and more importantly, your education!!

[complexintentions]

Coupla points. In SFO they could very easily have been above 5,000 feet at 17 miles, the standard arrival takes you overhead at 11,000 feet, and then departing the VOR on a heading. The don't start descending you until after that on the downwind, and will turn you base when they want, ready or not, to weave you in with all the other traffic arriving from other arrivals. I'm usually slowing to a Flap 1 or Flap 5 speed at the VOR (roughly 190-210kts). If you aren't proactive about managing your energy, you're going to be high, no doubt about it.

Also, on the B777 it's acceptable to use speedbrakes with flaps, just not desirable with a landing flap setting (20, 25, or 30 degrees) as you'll get a configuration warning. If the speedbrakes are extended with the thrust levers above idle for more than 15 seconds, you'll get an EICAS warning "Speedbrake Extended".

Lastly, the speed tape has a speed trend vector right next to, so besides the seat of your pants, there is an actual instrument to show you if your speed is decaying.

[complexintentions]

Say bananaskins, how's that anger management therapy going? lol

Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with anyone, seeing as you've just said what's already been stated a zillion times on this forum and PPRune.

It's a shame you don't seem to understand the difference between "race" and "culture". Race has to do with the colour of one's skin, which I don't think was what caused the accident here, Aryan Nation Tough Guy. It definitely may have had something to do with the culture at Korean, but again, that's been covered ad nauseum.

[Strega]

I dont know why people here are defending these boneheads...

They couldnt fly a visual approach!--- They CRASHED!!!

fatigue, new airport bla bla bla.. it doesnt matter.... They COULD NOT fly the aircraft! PERIOD!!!

THE END..

[bananaskins767]

Say bananaskins, how's that anger management therapy going? lol

Not sure why you're trying to pick a fight with anyone, seeing as you've just said what's already been stated a zillion times on this forum and PPRune.

It's a shame you don't seem to understand the difference between "race" and "culture". Race has to do with the colour of one's skin, which I don't think was what caused the accident here, Aryan Nation Tough Guy. It definitely may have had something to do with the culture at Korean, but again, that's been covered ad nauseum.

Stay in aviation a little longer and maybe you'll eventually learn complexintentions....maybe your name should be ivegottacomplex lol

[GUMPS]

Bananaforeskin, you must be the kindof guy that wears his fancy captian hat in your car on the way to and from work, and or have a small penis complex

On that note yes the crew should be able to hand fly an approach if its at their home airport, YYZ or somewhere more "complicated" like SFO

[xsbank]

Bananaskins, what I meant was that the aircraft is not designed to be hand flown. There are layers of technology that are there to assist the pilots. I'll bet there are companies who prohibit a raw data hand flown approach and what's more, even visual approaches are in the FMS data base. Its set up that way to mitigate risk. You are also not trained to be handflying the a/c, about 90+% of your recurrent training is done with the automation. If you are such a hero (temper temper) why don't you let your copilot fly the legs instead of the autopilot? Because the autopilot gives a better ride and the copilot likely couldn't do it anyway.

Most Canadian pilots, having been through our extensive apprenticeship program could handfly visual approaches, in fact would probably enjoy same, but most 3rd world pilots who have only ever done airline cadet programs are only systems managers, not "real" pilots.

Did you break your own company's SOP's to do that visual?

[GRK]

Banana...oh never mind...my momma said... etc etc etc

[bizjets101]

Sad to see such a serious thread digress to childish name calling and immaturity.

Back to the topic, here is Sully's take on this accident; Click Here.

[complexintentions]

bananskins,

You seem like an angry little man. Sorry about that. "Time in the industry?" *sigh* Unlike you, I've actually flown the same aircraft type as in the accident, and if it'll cheer you up, into LOS as well, many times. Before we got our RNAV approaches, half the time the ILS would become a visual when the transmitter dropped off the air. So what?

Get over yourself, chief. You aren't aren't that special and you aren't the only one with some time in the industry that visits these forums. Why not try to add something of value to the discussion, rather than some aggressive, albeit amusing, dick-waving?

I would suggest you watch the video in the link to see how an aviation professional like Sullenberg conducts himself: articulate, clear, and calm.

[FenderManDan]

Speaking of our own rules. What do you do when your skipper is screwing up, you see it and this applies?

CARs

602.05 (1) Every passenger on board an aircraft shall comply with instructions given by any crew member respecting the safety of the aircraft or of persons on board the aircraft.

(2) Every crew member on board an aircraft shall, during flight time, comply with the instructions of the pilot-in-command or of any person whom the pilot-in-command has authorized to act on behalf of the pilot-in-command.

[Nark]

I dont know why people here are defending these boneheads...

They couldnt fly a visual approach!--- They CRASHED!!!

fatigue, new airport bla bla bla.. it doesnt matter.... They COULD NOT fly the aircraft! PERIOD!!!

THE END..

You are missing the point. WHY did they crash on a visual?
Culture?
SOP's?
ATC vector?
Etc...

[Flying Nutcracker]

That's an interesting concept... 2 guys, one with 12k+, the other almost 10k total time, knew how to fly an airplane until Saturday morning. Then, all of a sudden they didn't anymore...

Begs the question... "Why?"...