54 replies to this topic

[ollyau]

E-Jet, on 06 July 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

PAPI was as well appearently (According to someone on Airliners).

According to two people on Reddit who flew into SFO today, PAPI was working: http://www.reddit.co..._at_sfo/cax8buu.

[LA_PHX]

LA_PHX, on 07 July 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

It appears as if that NOTAM was issued after the accident, though. I could be mistaken...not the best at decoding NOTAMs. Question for 89-LX, would landings be allowed if the glidepath and the PAPI were OTS?

Ignore that question. I learned me some stuffs.

[E-Jet]

Hmm, I see more people saying it was out then it wasn't on various forums. But I can't seem to find a straight answer lol.

Edited by E-Jet, 07 July 2013 - 11:51 AM.

[Independence76]

Landing without a glideslope on a beautiful day is no challenge whatsoever, especially for experienced 777 pilots. These guys have probably clocked in countless landings in all types of weather and airports. To "accidentally undershoot" in this case seems absolutely ludicrous to me. The similarities with BA38 especially make me weary of the "pilot error" claims.

Now, I obviously do not have the precise FDR data, but wouldn't it be speculated that the nose was extremely high upon impact, causing the tail, horizontal stabilizers, and bulkhead to break apart? The Boeing FBW system, as far as I know, would not have allowed them to pitch the nose that high. If the nose was that high, it would mean that the system was either off, or there was no power to the system (caused potentially by a dual-engine flameout).

[Chief_Bean]

Based on the flight radar data someone posted on reddit, the whole approach looked very unstable, and there was a definite loss of speed prior to the incident. However, to speculate as to the cause at this moment in time is pure wild guesswork...

[Independence76]

Chief_Bean, on 07 July 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Based on the flight radar data someone posted on reddit, the whole approach looked very unstable, and there was a definite loss of speed prior to the incident. However, to speculate as to the cause at this moment in time is pure wild guesswork...

An unstable approach is a detail that will be reviewed, but a number of things could have caused it. It could have been anything from engine thrust problems, control surface oddities, or even basic bad planning from the pilots. Hard to do a bad approach in such beautiful weather, I would expect (at least from this crew). Until we get more information on why the approach was done in such a way, I don't see any need to speculate on that detail due to the amount of possibilities.

Even then, how often do you hear about an "unstable approach" ending in a runway undershoot in such conditions?

[Cactus]

Independence76, on 07 July 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

Hard to do a bad approach in such beautiful weather, I would expect (at least from this crew)

On the contrary, there are many more unstable approaches performed in the summer months because there are an increased number of visual approaches.

[SwitchFX]

Asiana executives at press meeting about the crash.

[likebernie4]

While still unclear, I think an uncommanded deployment of the thrust reversers might have occurred. It would cause the loss of lift and would make a spooling up noise as heard by the passengers. Not sure what systems the 772 has to prevent that from happening.

[LA_PHX]

Independence76, on 07 July 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

These guys have probably clocked in countless landings in all types of weather and airports. To "accidentally undershoot" in this case seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

Obviously it is too soon to tell, but this wouldn't be the first time we hear criticisms of Korean and Asian pilots in general. This time around, I've been reading many criticisms about their general lack of experience and their over-reliance on automated systems.

[Independence76]

likebernie4, on 07 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

While still unclear, I think an uncommanded deployment of the thrust reversers might have occurred. It would cause the loss of lift and would make a spooling up noise as heard by the passengers. Not sure what systems the 772 has to prevent that from happening.

The Lauda Air crash in 1991 caused changes to the system, including locking mechanisms on the engines whilst in-flight. Therefore, an uncommanded thrust deployment in the air would have been impossible. The 767's electronic engine controls were also removed after the accident.

Quote

Obviously it is too soon to tell, but this wouldn't be the first time we hear criticisms of Korean and Asian pilots in general. This time around, I've been reading many criticisms about their general lack of experience and their over-reliance on automated systems.

Asian cultures are very different when it comes to operational safety. South Korea used to be fairly poor in air safety until 1999, while Japan is wonderful, and China is extremely questionable their practices.

It is highly unusual in present day for a South Korean crew to make such a potentially simple mistake.

As for reliance on automation, it's still up for question regarding the G/S being inoperative. Even then, the approaches in the past 2 days were generally stable and likely also had the G/S unusable. I would also suspect Korean piloting culture to be conscious of the Korean Air 801 crash in 1997. The crew on that decided to follow down a G/S they were specifically told was not working.

Edited by Independence76, 07 July 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[LA_PHX]

Information already released from the cockpit voice recorder:

Quote

-- The cockpit voice recorder of Asiana Flight 214 reveal the pilots called to initiate a "go-around" at another landing 1.5 second before impact, NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman told reporters on Sunday.

--"There is no discussion of any aircraft anomalies or concerns with the approach," National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman told reporters Sunday, providing an update on Saturday's plane crash. She said a call from a crew member to increase speed was made approximately seven seconds before impact.

Video of the crash from start to finish in the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

You can see why witnesses described the plane as cartwheeling. It got quite a bit of air as it slid.

[Iain_]

The NTSB have released a statement:

On Jul 7th the NTSB reported in a press conference at San Francisco Airport, the crew was cleared for a visual approach to runway 28L, the crew acknowledged, flaps were set at 30 degrees, gear was down, Vapp was 137 knots, a normal approach commenced, no anomalies or concerns were raised within the cockpit, 7 seconds prior to impact a crew member called for speed, 4 seconds prior to impact the stick shaker activated, a call to go-around happened 1.5 seconds prior to impact, this data based on a first read out of the cockpit voice recorder. According to flight data recorder the throttles were at idle, the speed significantly decayed below target of 137 knots - the exact value not yet determined -, the thrust levers were advanced and the engines appeared to respond normally. The NTSB confirmed the PAPIs runway 28L were available to the approaching aircraft before the accident, however were damaged in the accident and thus went out of service again. The localizer was available, the glideslope was out of service, according NOTAMs were in effect. There were no reports of windshear and no adverse weather conditions. The air traffic controller was operating normal, no anomaly was effective, until the controller noticed the aircraft had hit the sea wall. The controller declared emergency for the aircraft and initiated emergency response. ARAIB and Asiana personnel have arrived on scene and have joined the investigation. The Mayor of San Francisco reported runway 10L/28R was cleared for service.

[E-Jet]

" Lee, in his late 40s, had 12,387 hours of flying experience, including 3,220 hours on the Boeing 777, according to the Transport Ministry in Seoul.

A second pilot on board the aircraft, Lee Kang-kook, had 9,793 hours flying experience and 43 hours on the 777."

Something someone found and sent to me about the pilots. First one being the Captain and Lee Kang-Kook being the F/O.

Edited by E-Jet, 07 July 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[Iain_]

It seems both the PAPI and LOC were available. The spooling up heard by passengers would have been the go-around being initiated.

It's looking like pilot error.

Video of the impact:

[_TW_]

Can't believe that the plane didn't break apart when it cart-wheeled.  The force of the secondary impact must have been unreal..

[Iain_]

I know, and for only two deaths. Remember the AA DC-10 crash that flipped over?

[LA_PHX]

It is now being reported that it was actually the pilot flying as Captain that had 43 hours in the 777. It was his first flight to SFO in the 777 but he had flown there in the 747.

http://www.reuters.c...N0FE07V20130708

[LA_PHX]

Tragically, it appears as if one of the girls that died may have been run over by an emergency vehicle responding:

http://www.sfgate.co...run-4651323.php

[Independence76]

If pilot error, it appears that serious breaches of CRM would likely be involved.

For them to reach the decision height on the approach and still completely "lose it" 5 seconds to touchdown would mean someone probably didn't speak up or take control when necessary. Keep in mind, this was an absolutely beautiful day, warm and dry runway, and absolutely perfect conditions for a visual approach. Even if the pilot continued above the glideslope (as it so seemed about 20 seconds to touchdown), there still would have been excellent stopping room.

I would be willing to bet something caused the pilots to react poorly, or simply it was due to absolute incompetence. Hope to hear more information soon.

LA_PHX, on 07 July 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

Tragically, it appears as if one of the girls that died may have been run over by an emergency vehicle responding:

http://www.sfgate.co...run-4651323.php

That's still unconfirmed.