Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    Naw, I had just hoped you could comprehend the concept that ATC sometimes keeps people higher than they should and that it's been listed as a contributing factor on crashes before.

    But since you've never heard of it then that's the way it is. Please carry on.
    And was that the cause of the Asiana crash, or did the pilots just screw the pooch, genius?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
      And was that the cause of the Asiana crash, or did the pilots just screw the pooch, genius?
      Braindead:

      Here's what I know: Primary causes and contributing factors are concepts you'll never understand.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • Insightful URL: http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=51646

        Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
        A very l o n g time ago in my early 20's I was in traffic court trying to settle a number of unpaid parking tickets. You just throw them away right? Wrong. After getting arrested on warrants I went to court to try to clear the whole mess up. The judge was being a jerk and so was I. As my voice was getting a little too loud he told me to lower my voice, so I reached down into my gut and went as deep as I could and said "Is this low enough?" The judge came out of his chair and pointed to a door where a bailiff took me by the arm and deposited me until the other 200 or so people in the room had their cases heard. Boy did I learn not to screw with judges and how to make a deep and meaningful apology on that day.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • I'll never understand arrogant internet bullies like you. Mr. 10 hour instrument pilot.

          Comment


          • If you guys don't start behaving I'm going to start waving the moderation wand... OK ?
            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

            Comment


            • No problem here Brian.

              Comment



              • Page 22, last paragraph

                Originally posted by NTSB
                PROBABLE CAUSE

                The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the flight crew's excessive airspeed and flightpath angle during the approach and landing and its failure to abort the approach when stabilized approach criteria were not met. Contributing to the accident was the controller's positioning of the airplane in such a manner as to leave no safe options for the flight crew other than a go-around maneuver.
                and Brian...just trying to explain something, but have been met with closed-minded responses and been labeled as arrogant.

                Yeah, I've made some jabs, but I'd ask you to consider who's offering facts to support their point. However, I'm done as I'm sure the rest of the forum both gets it and is tired of it.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  This is what I'm talking about. The PIC IGNORED multiple sink rate GPWS callouts... SINK RATE.... SINK RATE... Capt: "That's alright".

                  The PIC also ignored standard Southwest callout procedure.

                  Futhermore:
                  The Safety Board recognizes that the flight crew could have asked the controller to remove the speed adjustment assignment before the approach clearance was issued, but the CVR transcript indicates that no such request was made.
                  So, really, the report conclusion should be reworded to say:

                  Contributing to the unstable approach was the controller's positioning of the airplane in such a manner as to leave two safe options for the flight crew: a go-around maneuver or a request for revised ATC instructions.

                  That still acknowledges it in the sequence of events.
                  But the accident... sorry Capt., that was all you.

                  Comment


                  • My brother's perception having pushed tin for 15 years is that the priority is to stop planes bumping into eachother. This can sometimes lead to late descents or turns, but there is an expectation that the pilot will fly the situation to a successful landing or declare it unreasonable where ATC will then give vectors to re-position.

                    He always explains things to me like I'm a bit stupid, thankfully.

                    Could I dare suggest that you are both correct in that it does happen, not through negligence but necessity or oportunity, it can be a peripheral or contributary factor in a chain of events (in the qualified opinion of many investigators), but it can never be used as a valid 'excuse' by a pilot because they almost always have other options (unless they have flown their planes dry of fuel)... "he told me to do it so I crashed...."!?!

                    What is the point in having an opinion which you don't want to expand or improve through the perceptions of others... regardless of their personality, typing impediment, experience or attitude? Again, that's the very best part of forums: finding people with different views...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      This is what I'm talking about. The PIC IGNORED multiple sink rate GPWS callouts... SINK RATE.... SINK RATE... Capt: "That's alright".
                      That's because he was performing the 'exact' descent that he needed to perform to make the runway (earlier in the report they calculate what the angle/descent rate would needed to have been and then give numbers on what he was actually doing and the theoretical and actual were very close).

                      So his descent is not really a screw up as much as continung below the magical 500 ft mark and landing while going very fast.

                      From reading stuff like D-Dog's comment above, it seems not all that rare that an airline pilot has to do some "diving"...it's just that you have to "dive extra hard" so that somewhere around 500 to 1000 feet, you can slow up, get on the glide path and get the power in the ball park.

                      I still don't know if Asiana was set up too high, but much like the Southwest guys- it seems like they were doing a "mostly on-track dive" to the runway.

                      Different from Southweast, Asiana was slowing towards target speeds and the glideslope. However, 1) they violated the "500-ft rule" and 2) didn't monitor speed at the most important times- and assumed the autothrottles had them covered. They fell short, Southwest went long.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
                        Could I dare suggest that you are both correct in that it does happen, not through negligence but necessity or oportunity, it can be a peripheral or contributary factor in a chain of events (in the qualified opinion of many investigators), but it can never be used as a valid 'excuse' by a pilot because they almost always have other options (unless they have flown their planes dry of fuel)... "he told me to do it so I crashed...."!?!
                        That's exactly the definition of "contributory factor": A necessary link in the chain of events that led to the accident, being that link something that was not supposed to happen (that's why "taking off" is a contributory factor).

                        And that's exactly what's 3WE has been saying all the time: The cause was the pilots' actions and decisions, but the ATC vectoring them too high/fast/close (if that was the case) might have been a contributory factor. One that shouldn't have led to anything worse than go-around, but one that gave the opportunity for the pilots to screw up. A layer removed.

                        Originally posted by 3WE
                        I still don't know if Asiana was set up too high, but much like the Southwest guys- it seems like they were doing a "mostly on-track dive" to the runway.
                        My guess at this point is that they were vectored to a somehow unfavorable position, but one from where they could have easily corrected and stabilized before the stabilized approach gate. It looks like they were flying a descent higher and parallel to the nominal glide slope in the early stages of the final approach, and increased the sink rate in the last part to intercept the glide slope. They could have done exactly the opposite.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          A layer removed.
                          I don't think this is a layer we can remove at this point in history. Like birds and ice ingestion, dealing with poor ATC is part of the job. Being alert is part of the job. Speaking up is part of the job. Defending the safety of the flight is part of the job. Knowing how the plane works is... alright, I think we all agree that continuing to fight the fight against pilot error is the ONLY way to prevent such things in the future, no matter what the final report attributes as 'contributing" factors.

                          Conversely, you could 100% fix the ATC problem and pilots like this would find some other way to crash into a seawall.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post


                            Page 22, last paragraph



                            and Brian...just trying to explain something, but have been met with closed-minded responses and been labeled as arrogant.


                            Yeah, I've made some jabs, but I'd ask you to consider who's offering facts to support their point. However, I'm done as I'm sure the rest of the forum both gets it and is tired of it.
                            You really are an arrogant dick prick PWE. I've tried to be friendly with you, but from day one you've jumped my shit. I can't figure out your hostility toward me. You get on here and pontificate like you're an expert in all things aviation, but you have zero credibility. I believe you told me once that you have something like 100 hours with 10 hours of instrument training. That qualifies you as an arrogant asshole with all the answers how?

                            I've tried to have civil conversations with you, but you always want to engage in a pissing contest.

                            Fuck you PWE. Fuck you and your egotistic attitude. Take a giant suck out of my asshole.

                            Do what you need to do Brian, but there's no rush. I'm done with this fucking PWE shit.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I don't think this is a layer we can remove at this point in history. Like birds and ice ingestion, dealing with poor ATC is part of the job. Being alert is part of the job. Speaking up is part of the job. Defending the safety of the flight is part of the job. Knowing how the plane works is... alright, I think we all agree that continuing to fight the fight against pilot error is the ONLY way to prevent such things in the future, no matter what the final report attributes as 'contributing" factors.

                              Conversely, you could 100% fix the ATC problem and pilots like this would find some other way to crash into a seawall.
                              Again, not poor ATC or possible to 'fix' as the consequence would be a lot more holding, less departure slots, tighter slot windows and less flexibility to pilots' requests. The fix in itself would only transfer sfaety issues into less managable areas. Also, the pilots don't want that fix, nor do the airlines, passengers or aATC themselves.

                              Not counting out and out ATC errors like pushing aircraft into actual spatial conficts or incorrect vector instructions etc, it is not their job to put them only into a specific point in the sky for a perfect approach, but to bring them to an 'area' where the pilots' and aircraft systems can manage the rest. So while t here may be an ideal height at a certain waypoint, it is not poor ATC if they need to bring you left/right/high/low to that point in order to maintain separation or compensate for a late/early/fast/slow descent. Each crew seem to react slightly differently either in time or magnitude to an instruction, so when an object is moving at 250-400kts a few seconds delay in making an instructed change can hardly be attributed to an ATC error when the aircraft does not appear on exactly the glideslope so no adjustments are needed by the flight crew.

                              So shades of grey and we will see what shade the Asiana crew had to deal with on this occasion, but I can't see it being labelled as a contributary factor unless it could reasonably be called excessive and beyond the reasonable expectations of the ability of a crew or the performance of aircraft to cope with.

                              As always, would very much appreciate any correction to my understanding.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                                You really are an arrogant dick prick PWE. I've tried to be friendly with you, but from day one you've jumped my shit. I can't figure out your hostility toward me. You get on here and pontificate like you're an expert in all things aviation, but you have zero credibility. I believe you told me once that you have something like 100 hours with 10 hours of instrument training. That qualifies you as an arrogant asshole with all the answers how?

                                I've tried to have civil conversations with you, but you always want to engage in a pissing contest.

                                Fuck you PWE. Fuck you and your egotistic attitude. Take a giant suck out of my asshole.

                                Do what you need to do Brian, but there's no rush. I'm done with this fucking PWE shit.
                                Um, did this work for you at debating club?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X