Jump to content

Boeing 777 crashes at SF airport!


Conure

Recommended Posts

CNN reporting the Captain! Only 43 hours! Wow flying international?! That explains it.

 

He had 43hrs. on-type and was flying under supervision. Both guys had thousands of hours in their logbook. The 'student' had been flying long haul for many years.

 

This is how rumours spread...

"It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idle power approaches? No.

 

In VMC it might be acceptable to have idle power from FL380 all the way down to as low as 500'. As long as you're stabilized by 500, you're good to go. That's what most pilots strive for as this is the optimum path. Obviously 999/1000 this doesn't happen as ATC tends to screw up your descent planning...

 

It also increases the risk of ending up hot and high on final...for reasons other than ATC...

"It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention they stated the auto transponder was off, from SFO side?

" any failure you meet, is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater come back, "  W Forbes

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts,"  Winston Churchill

" He who never changes his mind, never changes anything," 

MSI z690MPG DDR4 || i914900k|| ddr4-64gb PC3200 || MSI RTX 4070Ti|Game1300w|Win10x64| |turtle beach elite pro 5.1|| ViRpiL,T50cm2|| MFG Crosswinds|| VT50CM-plus rotor Throttle || G10 RGB EVGA Keyboard/MouseLogitech || PiMax Crystal VR || 32 Samsung||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In VMC it might be acceptable to have idle power from FL380 all the way down to as low as 500'. As long as you're stabilized by 500, you're good to go. That's what most pilots strive for as this is the optimum path. Obviously 999/1000 this doesn't happen as ATC tends to screw up your descent planning...

 

It also increases the risk of ending up hot and high on final...for reasons other than ATC...

 

Never heard of it happening. Maybe in the future with "NextGen" here in the US... but I'm sure everyone will set a literal limit for Continuous Descent higher than 500' in their ops specs now! :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but they at least they had to use the auto throttle...

Why?

 

WHY ??? :doh:

 

to do not to stall !

that plane lost all its energy - thats why they used to set the auto-throttle/approach speed - reducing workload of pilots

obvious: in last moments THE stall caused the crash


Edited by NRG-Vampire

sign-pic4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we can speculate all we want , in the end we weren't in the office.

And so far they sounded confused when they were talking

with the tower.


Edited by Mastiff

" any failure you meet, is never a defeat; merely a set up for a greater come back, "  W Forbes

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts,"  Winston Churchill

" He who never changes his mind, never changes anything," 

MSI z690MPG DDR4 || i914900k|| ddr4-64gb PC3200 || MSI RTX 4070Ti|Game1300w|Win10x64| |turtle beach elite pro 5.1|| ViRpiL,T50cm2|| MFG Crosswinds|| VT50CM-plus rotor Throttle || G10 RGB EVGA Keyboard/MouseLogitech || PiMax Crystal VR || 32 Samsung||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHY ??? :doh:

to do not to stall !

that plane lost all its energy - thats why they used to set the auto-throttle/approach speed - reducing workload of pilots

 

 

It's not as simple as that. There are many cases when automation is a hindrance. They started off high on final. It takes precious time to tell the autopilot/autothrottle what to do in order to fix the situation. The guy might have concluded that using automatics would not give them enough time to be stabilized at the required altitude. A sound decision if you ask me!

 

There's an excellent video on YouTube on how to use autopilot/autothrottle/fms. Do a search for "Children of the magenta" (approx. 25 mins) and get some insight into how one should use (-and refrain from-) automatics in an airliner.

 

obvious: in last moments THE stall caused the crash

 

That's not what caused the crash... Stall is the result of many things going wrong well before the actual crash. These guys are not idiots you make them out to be...

"It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we cam speculate all we want , in the end we weren't in the office.

And so far they sounded confused when they were talking

with the tower.

 

Uhm... yes, you've just crash landed a B777. Are you surprised that the guy didn't sound all coolio on the radio? I'm surprised they were able to get a word in amongst all the idiots behind him calling "go-around"...

"It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said previously. I will be waiting for the interim report that will be issued, in due time. I will be waiting for the probable cause report, in due time. This investigation is in the early stages and many different information sources will need to the gathered, analyzed, documented, interviewed, massaged .... whatever, in due time (those words again!).

Chairman Hersman's briefs media on Asiana flight 214, July 7, 2013 is just that, a media brief.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

AEF 161 Squadron CO ~~~ My YouTube Channel ~~~ "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering." The Shoveller ... Mystery Men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said previously. I will be waiting for the interim report that will be issued, in due time. I will be waiting for the probable cause report, in due time. This investigation is in the early stages and many different information sources will need to the gathered, analyzed, documented, interviewed, massaged .... whatever, in due time (those words again!).

 

Chairman Hersman's briefs media on Asiana flight 214, July 7, 2013 is just that, a media brief.

 

 

Yes, and you will see it boils down to pilot error...hence pilots did no distress call until a second or two then it was too late...

[/Table]

Recruiting for Aerobatic Team/Fighter Group...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. and for a reality check !!

 

Mic Dundee from pprune wrote:Low-down on Korean pilots, (From a friend).

 

After I retired from UAL as a Standards Captain on the -400, I got a job as a simulator instructor working for Alteon (a Boeing subsidiary) at Asiana. When I first got there, I was shocked and surprised by the lack of basic piloting skills shown by most of the pilots. It is not a normal situation with normal progression from new hire, right seat, left seat taking a decade or two. One big difference is that ex-Military pilots are given super-seniority and progress to the left seat much faster. Compared to the US, they also upgrade fairly rapidly because of the phenomenal growth by all Asian air carriers. By the way, after about six months at Asiana, I was moved over to KAL and found them to be identical. The only difference was the color of the uniforms and airplanes. I worked in Korea for 5 long years and although I found most of the people to be very pleasant, it is a minefield of a work environment ... for them and for us expats.

 

One of the first things I learned was that the pilots kept a web-site and reported on every training session. I dont think this was officially sanctioned by the company, but after one or two simulator periods, a database was building on me (and everyone else) that told them exactly how I ran the sessions, what to expect on checks, and what to look out for. For example; I used to open an aft cargo door at 100 knots to get them to initiate an RTO and I would brief them on it during the briefing. This was on the B-737 NG and many of the captains were coming off the 777 or B744 and they were used to the Master Caution System being inhibited at 80 kts. Well, for the first few days after I started that, EVERYONE rejected the takeoff. Then, all of a sudden they all got it; and continued the takeoff (in accordance with their manuals). The word had gotten out. I figured it was an overall PLUS for the training program.

 

We expat instructors were forced upon them after the amount of fatal accidents (most of the them totally avoidable) over a decade began to be noticed by the outside world. They were basically given an ultimatum by the FAA, Transport Canada, and the EU to totally rebuild and rethink their training program or face being banned from the skies all over the world. They hired Boeing and Airbus to staff the training centers. KAL has one center and Asiana has another. When I was there (2003-2008) we had about 60 expats conducting training KAL and about 40 at Asiana. Most instructors were from the USA, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand with a few stuffed in from Europe and Asia. Boeing also operated training centers in Singapore and China so they did hire some instructors from there.

 

This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce normal standards of performance. By normal standards, I would include being able to master basic tasks like successfully shoot a visual approach with 10 kt crosswind and the weather CAVOK. I am not kidding when I tell you that requiring them to shoot a visual approach struck fear in their hearts ... with good reason. Like this Asiana crew, it didnt compute that you needed to be a 1000 AGL at 3 miles and your sink rate should be 600-800 Ft/Min. But, after 5 years, they finally nailed me. I still had to sign my name to their training and sometimes if I just couldnt pass someone on a check, I had no choice but to fail them. I usually busted about 3-5 crews a year and the resistance against me built. I finally failed an extremely incompetent crew and it turned out he was the a high-ranking captain who was the Chief Line Check pilot on the fleet I was teaching on. I found out on my next monthly trip home that KAL was not going to renew my Visa. The crew I failed was given another check and continued a fly while talking about how unfair Captain so-and-so was.

 

Any of you Boeing glass-cockpit guys will know what I mean when I describe these events. I gave them a VOR approach with an 15 mile arc from the IAF. By the way, KAL dictated the profiles for all sessions and we just administered them. He requested two turns in holding at the IAF to get set up for the approach. When he finally got his nerve up, he requested Radar Vectors to final. He could have just said he was ready for the approach and I would have cleared him to the IAF and then Cleared for the approach and he could have selected Exit Hold and been on his way. He was already in LNAV/VNAV PATH. So, I gave him vectors to final with a 30 degree intercept. Of course, he failed to Extend the FAF and he couldnt understand why it would not intercept the LNAV magenta line when he punched LNAV and VNAV. He made three approaches and missed approaches before he figured out that his active waypoint was Hold at XYZ. Every time he punched LNAV, it would try to go back to the IAF ... just like it was supposed to do. Since it was a check, I was not allowed (by their own rules) to offer him any help. That was just one of about half dozen major errors I documented in his UNSAT paperwork. He also failed to put in ANY aileron on takeoff with a 30-knot direct crosswind (again, the weather was dictated by KAL).

 

This Asiana SFO accident makes me sick and while I am surprised there are not more, I expect that there will be many more of the same type accidents in the future unless some drastic steps are taken. They are already required to hire a certain percentage of expats to try to ingrain more flying expertise in them, but more likely, they will eventually be fired too. One of the best trainees I ever had was a Korean/American (he grew up and went to school in the USA) who flew C-141s in the USAF. When he got out, he moved back to Korea and got hired by KAL. I met him when I gave him some training and a check on the B-737 and of course, he breezed through the training. I give him annual PCs for a few years and he was always a good pilot. Then, he got involved with trying to start a pilots union and when they tired to enforce some sort of duty rigs on international flights, he was fired after being arrested and JAILED!

 

The Koreans are very very bright and smart so I was puzzled by their inability to fly an airplane well. They would show up on Day 1 of training (an hour before the scheduled briefing time, in a 3-piece suit, and shined shoes) with the entire contents of the FCOM and Flight Manual totally memorized. But, putting that information to actual use was many times impossible. Crosswind landings are also an unsolvable puzzle for most of them. I never did figure it out completely, but I think I did uncover a few clues. Here is my best guess. First off, their educational system emphasizes ROTE memorization from the first day of school as little kids. As you know, that is the lowest form of learning and they act like robots. They are also taught to NEVER challenge authority and in spite of the flight training heavily emphasizing CRM/CLR, it still exists either on the surface or very subtly. You just cant change 3000 years of culture.

 

The other thing that I think plays an important role is the fact that there is virtually NO civil aircraft flying in Korea. Its actually illegal to own a Cessna-152 and just go learn to fly. Ultra-lights and Powered Hang Gliders are Ok. I guess they dont trust the people to not start WW III by flying 35 miles north of Inchon into North Korea. But, they dont get the kids who grew up flying (and thinking for themselves) and hanging around airports. They do recruit some kids from college and send then to the US or Australia and get them their tickets. Generally, I had better experience with them than with the ex-Military pilots. This was a surprise to me as I spent years as a Naval Aviator flying fighters after getting my private in light airplanes. I would get experienced F-4, F-5, F-15, and F-16 pilots who were actually terrible pilots if they had to hand fly the airplane. What a shock!

 

Finally, I'll get off my box and talk about the total flight hours they claim. I do accept that there are a few talented and free-thinking pilots that I met and trained in Korea. Some are still in contact and I consider them friends. They were a joy! But, they were few and far between and certainly not the norm.

 

Actually, this is a worldwide problem involving automation and the auto-flight concept. Take one of these new first officers that got his ratings in the US or Australia and came to KAL or Asiana with 225 flight hours. After takeoff, in accordance with their SOP, he calls for the autopilot to be engaged after takeoff. How much actual flight time is that? Hardly one minute. Then he might fly for hours on the autopilot and finally disengage it (MAYBE?) below 800 ft after the gear was down, flaps extended and on airspeed (autothrottle). Then he might bring it in to land. Again, how much real flight time or real experience did he get. Minutes! Of course, on the 777 or 747, its the same only they get more inflated logbooks.

 

So, when I hear that a 10,000 hour Korean captain was vectored in for a 17-mile final and cleared for a visual approach in CAVOK weather, it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until now everything points that's clearly a pilot error. The final approach fix was at a wrong altitude (way above the g/s, and not having a working g/s at that runway helped a bit to maintain the error until too late) they attempted to correct that at the last few nm. Unless you fix it before 1000 feet don't attempt to land, go around and try again.

 

Lesson learned. Pilots need to disengage autopilot and start fly manual approaches more often. Also Airbus can easily take the advantage here to point out the superior safety mechanisms of their FBW aircraft.

 

P.S. I'm not gonna piss on Korean pilots, it's not fair to put them all in one basket.

 

Intel i7 12700k / Corsair H150i Elite Capellix / Asus TUF Z690 Wifi D4 / Corsair Dominator 32GB 3200Mhz / Corsair HW1000W / 1x Samsung SSD 970 Evo Plus 500Gb + 1 Corsair MP600 1TB / ASUS ROG Strix RTX 3080 OC V2 / Fractal Design Meshify 2 / HOTAS Warthog / TFRP Rudder / TrackIR 5 / Dell U2515h 25" Monitor 1440p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ILS is NOTAMED out and you can't hand fly, load up RNAV. Simple. They already got warned if they dont fix their training program, they will not fly in FAA and EU airspace. This will be end. Maybe more proper pilot jobs will be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lesson learned. Pilots need to disengage autopilot and start fly manual approaches more often. Also Airbus can easily take the advantage here to point out the superior safety mechanisms of their FBW aircraft.

 

P.S. I'm not gonna piss on Korean pilots, it's not fair to put them all in one basket.

and what superior safety systems are those? The same ones that allowed Air France to put one of theirs into the Atlantic because the stall warning ceases at 80kts? The ones that allowed the airbus test/display pilot to put his aircraft into the trees.... heck the list is long, don't get me started on Airbooos. If its not Boeing I aint going.

 

Just FYI, the B777 has autothrottle wake-up. If you disconnect the A/T's by pressing the thrust lever button and then continue to fly well below min-manoeuvre speed the A/T's will re-engage and apply power. The only way to stop this is to turn off the A/T arm switches (which is only done when shutting down an engine btw).

 

So what I would like to know is 1. Why did they disconnect the A/T's and 2. Why didn't the A/T wake-up didn't activate (maybe it did but he held them closed). 100ft at 109 kts with stick shaker activating is disconcerting to say the least. Not blaming the pilots at this point, that's the NTSBs job.

i7-7700K : 16Gb DDR4 2800 Mhz : Asus Mobo : 2TB HDD : Intel 520 SSD 240gb : RTX 2080ti: Win10 64pro : Dx10 : TrackiR4 : TM Warthog : ASUS ROG SWIFT PG348Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its not Boeing I aint going.

Oh come on, I really did think the intelligence level on these forums would prevent such a statement to be made...

 

As for how an Airbus would have behaved, here´s some reading material: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/335863/1/

 

In short: No aircraft is foolproof. If a pilot is incompetent enough or even wants to crash the airplane, the airplane will crash. No matter if it´s a Boeing, an Airbus, an Embraer, a Sukhoi, a Tupolev, a what-have-you.

- Two miles of road lead nowhere, two miles of runway lead everywhere -

Click here for system specs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on, I really did think the intelligence level on these forums would prevent such a statement to be made...

 

As for how an Airbus would have behaved, here´s some reading material: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/335863/1/

 

Don't need to read any material, I am quite familiar with Airbus and Boeing. I am also familiar with the history of the aircraft their dispatch rate%, safety records etc etc Which is why there is an industry wide accepted statement that reads "if it aint Boeing it aint going". Ask any ground engineer qualified on both types and he will gladly explain it to you in detail. Why you picked one slightly tongue in cheek statement amongst my whole post though is beyond me.

 

 

In short: No aircraft is foolproof. If a pilot is incompetent enough or even wants to crash the airplane, the airplane will crash. No matter if it´s a Boeing, an Airbus, an Embraer, a Sukhoi, a Tupolev, a what-have-you.

Kind of obvious don't you think and quite possibly insulting everyone else's intelligence.


Edited by Druid_

i7-7700K : 16Gb DDR4 2800 Mhz : Asus Mobo : 2TB HDD : Intel 520 SSD 240gb : RTX 2080ti: Win10 64pro : Dx10 : TrackiR4 : TM Warthog : ASUS ROG SWIFT PG348Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not making fun of the situation, obviously many people got hurt and some died, I am simply talking about this TV news station, KTVU, that in their haste to release information, they did not verify and release some names that to me are obviously questionable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrJ5YGkIp-4

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d

Just FYI, the B777 has autothrottle wake-up. If you disconnect the A/T's by pressing the thrust lever button and then continue to fly well below min-manoeuvre speed the A/T's will re-engage and apply power. The only way to stop this is to turn off the A/T arm switches (which is only done when shutting down an engine btw).

 

I've seen this autothrottle feature mentioned on various forums but it is little understood.

 

To answer your question... (from Boeing 777 FCOM);

 

"When the pitch mode is FLCH or TOGA, or the airplane is below 400 feet above the airport on takeoff, or below 100 feet radio altitude on approach, the autothrottle will not automatically activate. Also, during a descent in VNAV SPD, the autothrottle may activate in HOLD mode and will not support stall protection."

 

To intercept the glideslope from above, 99 out of 100 times, you're going to use FLCH or VNAV SPD mode.

 

I'm sure they (Boeing engineers) have thought long and hard about this... and I'm sure they can defend their reasoning behind it. However, to me (B777 pilot), it doesn't make any sense.

"It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...