Can't land with the VASI U/S

[Colonel Sanders]

Sometimes, a double facepalm just isn't enough.

The 10,000 hour gold-bars can't land without a VASI
in perfect wx.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2nBtzJXHY

WASHINGTON -- The captain flying the Asiana Airlines flight that crashed in San Francisco in July told accident investigators the approach for landing was "very stressful" and he thought the plane's automatic throttle was always working, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Lee Kang Kuk, 46, who was landing at San Francisco International Airport for the first time, told National Transportation Safety Board officials in an interview the visual approach was difficult to perform in the large Boeing 777 because the runway's light system that helps guide pilots was out of service

According to the NTSB report, Lee said he was "very concerned" about his ability to bring the plane in without the lights and instrument landing systems. Other pilots in the cockpit told investigators Lee appeared nervous.

I wonder how this guy would do on a night circling
approach in the fog ...

[Shiny Side Up]

Sometimes, a double facepalm just isn't enough.

This might be what you're looking for.

[jump154]

That would be the Triple7 faceplam.....

[PilotDAR]

Lee said he was "very concerned" about his ability to bring the plane in

Well, first, this would have been notam'd so no surprise. Second, if a pilot is "very concerned" about landing [safely], there is a filed alternate!

I'm very concerned about the skill of some pilots!

[pdw]

Other pilots in the cockpit told investigators Lee appeared nervous.

I wonder how this guy would do on a night circling
approach in the fog ...

Wow, take a look how fast the "other" guys throw "Lee" under the bus ...

Early NTSB news was clear they woke these 'landing pilots' only an hour prior, and that the others were now in the back resting. Where are these "other pilots" coming from now. How about we get the facts aligned ... complete with weather check etc.... and maybe see if PIC and co-pilot even had enough wake up time for their coffee / breakfast.

[Colonel Sanders]

[fanspeed]

Sometimes, a double facepalm just isn't enough.

The 10,000 hour gold-bars can't land without a VASI
in perfect wx.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2nBtzJXHY

WASHINGTON -- The captain flying the Asiana Airlines flight that crashed in San Francisco in July told accident investigators the approach for landing was "very stressful" and he thought the plane's automatic throttle was always working, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Lee Kang Kuk, 46, who was landing at San Francisco International Airport for the first time, told National Transportation Safety Board officials in an interview the visual approach was difficult to perform in the large Boeing 777 because the runway's light system that helps guide pilots was out of service

According to the NTSB report, Lee said he was "very concerned" about his ability to bring the plane in without the lights and instrument landing systems. Other pilots in the cockpit told investigators Lee appeared nervous.

I wonder how this guy would do on a night circling
approach in the fog ...

I thought his name was Ho Lee Fuk!

[iflyforpie]

It's not just him. So many times in severe VFR weather I hear the *click* *click* *click* *click* on 123.2 or 122.8...... somebody needs help to drag their aircraft in on a three degree approach.

[Colonel Sanders]

Actually, I use the VASI/PAPI as training wheels for
students, so that they immediately know if they are
high or low on final.

10,000TT gold-bars should fly a bit better than students.

[CpnCrunch]

Actually, I use the VASI/PAPI as training wheels for
students, so that they immediately know if they are
high or low on final.

Isn't 3 degrees a bit shallow for typical training aircraft?

[AirFrame]

I thought his name was Ho Lee Fuk!

No, no, that's a Chinese name. The pilot's name was Ha Yu Lan Dis Tang.

If you're going to be racist, at least get the nationality right...

[Trematode]

It's not just him. So many times in severe VFR weather I hear the *click* *click* *click* *click* on 123.2 or 122.8...... somebody needs help to drag their aircraft in on a three degree approach.

We do it as more of a warning to local maintenance crews or the town half-wits on their quads/motorcycles to get the hell off the runway. Even in severe clear. I think it's good practice especially at rural airstrips, more as something extra you do to ensure the runway is clear, not really for guidance on the approach.

[Trematode]

Isn't 3 degrees a bit shallow for typical training aircraft?

Yeah, and I think depending on the installation if they follow the lights down they might end up a ways down the runway. I've read CS mention that he uses the VASI for training purposes, but I never understood it. It would only cause confusion at the airport I instructed at -- on a mile final at 500' (where we tell them to turn), they'd show too high, and if they followed them in all the way they'd touch down 1000' from the threshold. I think it makes more sense to not even mention them, and have the student focus on regular visual cues. In the same way that you might have them focus entirely outside on the attitude throughout most of their ab initio training. Letting them peak down at the instruments too soon only gets them started with bad habits that are hard to break.

[Colonel Sanders]

I tell students there are three things they need
to do - at the same time, no less - to fly a final
approach:

1) line up with the runway centerline (don't be too far left or right)
2) get on the glidepath (don't be too high or too low)
3) correct airspeed (don't be too fast or too slow)

I'm sure you guys are all hot sticks, but for someone
just learning to fly, that's a lot of spaghetti on one
fork, and they have to juggle all three tasks at the
same time, which can get busy for them.

Yes, #2 + #3 are related, but they don't understand
that yet. Heck, most PPL's don't understand that.

I know that there is nothing particularly magical about
a 3 degree glidepath - you might say I use something
a bit steeper in the Pitts - but the student isn't flying
a Pitts, he's frantically trying to keep up with a trainer,
and having red/red - too low and white/white - too
high as a training crutch works "good enough" when
he is just learning to perform all three tasks at the
same time.

The only instrument I want him looking at is airspeed,
which is a lesson the Asiana SFO pilot could have learned
at some point.

PS This is an aviation post because here are some sparks
plugs from a Lycoming 540:

[Brown Bear]

It's not just him. So many times in severe VFR weather I hear the *click* *click* *click* *click* on 123.2 or 122.8...... somebody needs help to drag their aircraft in on a three degree approach.

We do it as more of a warning to local maintenance crews or the town half-wits on their quads/motorcycles to get the hell off the runway. Even in severe clear. I think it's good practice especially at rural airstrips, more as something extra you do to ensure the runway is clear, not really for guidance on the approach.

I'm calling BS! NEWS FLASH....the runway lights are all bot invisible on the ground. You people just can't set up an approach in VFR without someone holding your hands.

[Colonel Sanders]

I hate to mention it, but don't they have megabucks worth
of navaids and software on board those crowdkillers which
could display an emulated glideslope?

Any cheap VFR GPS does that.

Heck, if your megabuck navaids will display distance from
the field, you could use this "arithmetic" thing where you
multiply the nm by 300 to get your height in feet, for the
glideslope.

12 miles back, you should be 3600 AGL

7 miles back, you should be 2100 AGL

Too complicated for someone being paid $250,000/yr?

[pdw]

Sometimes, a double facepalm just isn't enough.

The 10,000 hour gold-bars can't land without a VASI
in perfect wx.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2nBtzJXHY

WASHINGTON -- The captain flying the Asiana Airlines flight that crashed in San Francisco in July told accident investigators the approach for landing was "very stressful" and he thought the plane's automatic throttle was always working, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Lee Kang Kuk, 46, who was landing at San Francisco International Airport for the first time, told National Transportation Safety Board officials in an interview the visual approach was difficult to perform in the large Boeing 777 because the runway's light system that helps guide pilots was out of service

According to the NTSB report, Lee said he was "very concerned" about his ability to bring the plane in without the lights and instrument landing systems. Other pilots in the cockpit told investigators Lee appeared nervous.

I wonder how this guy would do on a night circling
approach in the fog ...

I think "in the fog" the air would be fairly stable, wouldn't it ?

After some checking I don't see the air during the 2 minutes prior to their last bad mile was all that stable ... "perfect" as it may seem from reports of CAVU.

I hope the investigative weather gurus are checking this out thoroughly (shaking my head just a little)

There would have been fairly large changes at any point along their glide slope in the difference between ground speed and indicated airspeed, where it first got "too fast" (where GS starts out ~ 15-20kts slower than AS and gradually equals AS) which then got "too slow" a-lot-more-rapidly (as GS actually surpasses AS by 5-10) and in the last mile AS increases to equal GS again near the surface (a relativewind increase actually adds a few knots there) ... and speed-increase also helped just enough to rebound with the added power to save so many.

Yeah, in checking the tons of WX-history stations around the bay for windspeeds can see the differences/directions at the different levels. There's as much as 20-30kts difference even (the hi/lo kinetic energy battle) between AS and GS and between the two extreme variance points along that path over 2+ minutes. Being "high at first" compounded the need to try and slow some more eventually ... but then just as GS nears AS and begins to surpass and the PIC misses the fast DECAY.

Need to be fairly practical here with math, firstly: to pick up on just how large that airspeed difference becomes, and secondly: that it's just when least expected (nice weather), and third: that it's also at the greatest intended slowing time ... where all three of those work together to make it tricky at the bad-spot (where things got bad so fast).

[Colonel Sanders]

pdw: Not sure if you're pulling my chain or not, but
this accident wasn't caused by windshear.

It was caused by the pilot not having his hand on the
throttles.

[Krimson]

pdw, I hope you never become an investigator

seems like your hobby though

[rt777]

Sometimes, a double facepalm just isn't enough.

The 10,000 hour gold-bars can't land without a VASI
in perfect wx.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2nBtzJXHY

WASHINGTON -- The captain flying the Asiana Airlines flight that crashed in San Francisco in July told accident investigators the approach for landing was "very stressful" and he thought the plane's automatic throttle was always working, according to a federal report released Wednesday.

Lee Kang Kuk, 46, who was landing at San Francisco International Airport for the first time, told National Transportation Safety Board officials in an interview the visual approach was difficult to perform in the large Boeing 777 because the runway's light system that helps guide pilots was out of service

According to the NTSB report, Lee said he was "very concerned" about his ability to bring the plane in without the lights and instrument landing systems. Other pilots in the cockpit told investigators Lee appeared nervous.

I wonder how this guy would do on a night circling
approach in the fog ...

That article is wrong, the VASI lights were serviceable. The Glide Slope was U/S, which IMO is even worse

[pdw]

pdw: Not sure if you're pulling my chain or not, but
this accident wasn't caused by windshear.

It was caused by the pilot not having his hand on the
throttles.

I agree 100%

Just saying it wasn't straight-in clear stable air .... and there what i mean is that along with whatever the goof up is with the throttle there was real attention required to adjust to the changes between airspeed and groundspeed over the longer approach distance of 2 minutes for the freshly woken-up pilots (picture a diagram with those two speeds meandering like that). The windshear idea doesn't even apply here since it defines more of a sudden change. The very gradual change in the difference between those two speeds (GS & AS) is no longer a shear, really. It's a fast aircraft though ... so it covers a good distance across the bay (the changing air-mass) in a short time.

Diagram:

First the aircraft is high and fast at 4000' + ... with groundspeed 15-20kts behind airspeed.

30-45 seconds later the aircraft is descending steeper at a high airspeed ... plus with groundspeed approaching equality to airspeed (increases relative wind on the beak in addition to AS-rise of steeper descent).

Not a half minute later the aircraft is flattening out on a suitable threshold aim and possibly still to slow intentionally (auto throttle thing becomes important here) ... with ground speed now leaving airspeed slightly behind briefly over that 3/4 mile or so (yes 'negative' ... but still not even windshear if GS gets only 5-10kts faster than AS over that whole time). Voila ... then late to add power there at a mile final / flat / low / slow ... and there at a mile final they are again back into the cooler ocean air blowing from the south at the surface / at the airport so they probably get 5-kts+ back on the beak in the breakeven crosswind there, the "lateral deviation".

Don't want to make too big a deal of it, yet if the difference between the AS and the GS is meandering enough (in the exact sequence as shown above ... over a 20-30kts of change) over the 5-miles in 2-minutes, then it qualifies as a participating factor, while considering the other parts of this package OF COURSE.

[Krimson]

I have never understood your obsession with the winds in every accident!

[pdw]

Its very few of them. This just so happens to be one.

But there are a number of other factors that dwarf the importance of this one contributing factor. This factor is mainly that the plane slowed at an abnormally faster rate at that critical point where then power is shown to be added late. I'm simply pointing out that just because the auto throttle didn't respond there and a hand wasn't on it, does not mean this aforementioned factor wasn't also at the root of the 'late power' problem

Marginalizing any one possible factor though, say due to a mere dis-interest in considering it in a probable cause discussion, might lead to an actual misrepresentation in the list of most realistic probable cause findings of an eventual final report. And there, if there IS an unfortunate omission, sadly the missing fact is forever overlooked while all the others are etched in stone.

[Beefitarian]

Are you a meteorologist?

[pdw]

No, it's also not their job description to figure out how meteorology affects aircraft performance; the pilot needs to be able to.

For a forensic analysis of WX-history around that accident, all that's needed is to check the data available to understand what was going on at all the stations in the surrounding area, often available almost to the minute of the time in question.