Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
    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.
    To cope with any shade of grey here means to go around or, if possible, request alternate ATC instructions. That should always be absolutely within the abilities of the crew and the aircraft (unless in an emergency approach). I just cannot see this aspect as being contributive to the crash itself. As I said, I sometimes think the NTSB reports are a bit too generous when it comes to 'contributing factors'.

    Comment


    • soooo, ?? the pilots just simply fooked up, because they cannot actually fly ?

      15000 hours, and fook all experience ?? , sounds about right !!!!!!!!!!!...

      Hmm,, we got a few here that might fall lnto that catagory, even without ED haha...

      Comment


      • Deadstick, you had an opportunity to say what you wanted to say re: 3WE without resorting to foul, aggressive language. Your last post is totally unacceptable in a public forum, it should have been the subject of a PM to 3WE.
        You have therefore given me no option but to request a ban on your current activities with Jetphotos.net. You will be advised further re: the time span of such a ban.

        3WE, you are not out of the woods yet either. I'm rather busy at the moment having just written my car off but I'm reviewing the thread and will be discussing various issues with the rest of the crew.

        I am making these statements in public because
        1. The issues started in a public forum and
        2. I want to make it QUITE CLEAR that such posts will not be tolerated on the JP forums. If you want to rip into someone do it in private messages.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
          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.
          Concur

          A little bit high and it should be a very effortless compensation by the pilots.

          Significantly high (whatever that is), and the crew won't have much margin to have it all fixed by ~500 feet, and then the door is open for a little mistake (ok, a big mistake with throtles and airspeed) to have bigger consequences.

          We'll have to see what the final report says about exactly how high/steep they were set up.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Evan View Post
            To cope with any shade of grey here means to go around or, if possible, request alternate ATC instructions. That should always be absolutely within the abilities of the crew and the aircraft (unless in an emergency approach). I just cannot see this aspect as being contributive to the crash itself. As I said, I sometimes think the NTSB reports are a bit too generous when it comes to 'contributing factors'.
            It can't be white. As I said, ATC will get you in the ballpark, but just because its not perfect positioning doesn't automatically mean a go-around. The criteria is that however bad, if they haven't stabilized by 500', then its a go around, however dark the shade was at final ATC positioning. The other option is for the pilot to say that it can't be done early enough to be re-positioned.

            I can't see anything on height and speed here that hasn't been handled routinely by crews on a regular basis. In fact, they seemed to be high for quite a while before the decision or action to lower the GS. Lack of ILS didn't help, but if they were holding attitude to bleed off speed, then a bit of spoiler helps you do both. Basic stuff really, and even when you get it slightly wrong, on 11,000' you have some room to play with here without stalling it or dropping short. So really don't see any evidence of a critical ATC error that could be a contributory cause, just a circumstantial situation.

            Whatever each of us thinks now, other opinions and definitively, the final report is almost always an education to everyone. More importantly, it should inspire pilots with similar dread of hand flying to seek further support from their airlines to make sure it doesn't happen again.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
              Bobby......remove head from arse...look and read again. He's joking.

              Shooting however IS over the top.

              Now, hanging ? Yes, much better. You can re-use the rope.

              Brian, Guess you should practice what you preach. Oh yea, I'm SUPPOSED to know that blue font means something special. Give me a break!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
                So really don't see any evidence of a critical ATC error that could be a contributory cause, just a circumstantial situation.
                I am feeling pretty confident (about 5.6% certain) that this was all due to a lack of familiarity about the A/T and A/P modal interaction (and thus a failure to maintain the engines thrust to the level required to fly a 3-degree approach path at the final approach speed), compounded by a failure to break off the approach when the first stabilization gates were missed (well before arriving at 500').

                Even if ATC didn't set them up perfectly, pilots with situational awareness would not have ended up doing a cartwheel finale. So circumstantial at best.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  Sorry I don't see anything on Google that would explain this?
                  I could not find any source objecting to blue font usage including google. I use it frequently in my professional life including on this forum and have never had negative feedback. I believe it is esier to read.

                  If anyone has a source that states using a blue font is "anti social" I would appreciate it.

                  Sorry to divert from the topic.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Like birds and ice ingestion, dealing with poor ATC is part of the job.
                    Of who's job? The pilot's job? I agree.
                    I said it before: The pilot has to deal with his own mistakes and with those of everybody else.
                    That doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to prevent the errors of the ATC, dispatcher, mechanics, etc.
                    Don't compare ATC with birds. I think many controllers can feel rightfully offended. I prefer to think that your average controller is much more susceptible to understanding, learning, training and reasoning that your average Canada goose.

                    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.
                    Yes, but a lot less often. Think GPWS, for example.

                    --- 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 Highkeas View Post
                      I could not find any source objecting to blue font usage including google. I use it frequently in my professional life including on this forum and have never had negative feedback. I believe it is esier to read.

                      If anyone has a source that states using a blue font is "anti social" I would appreciate it.

                      Sorry to divert from the topic.
                      bobby is a troll

                      Look closely.... I used a secret font.

                      Comment


                      • good God! this place is really going to hell..

                        will you all just stop your stupidity an discuss the topics

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          good God! this place is really going to hell..

                          will you all just stop your stupidity an discuss the topics
                          Perfectly said TeeVee. Any more off topic or derisory comments will be deleted.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            Brian, Guess you should practice what you preach. Oh yea, I'm SUPPOSED to know that blue font means something special. Give me a break!
                            Apologies, that came out not as intended. I was also joking. This is what makes written word communication so difficult to get across sometimes.
                            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Don't compare ATC with birds. I think many controllers can feel rightfully offended. I prefer to think that your average controller is much more susceptible to understanding, learning, training and reasoning that your average Canada goose.
                              I'm sure the average Canada goose is fairly smart and won't get hit by a passing jet, but it's not about being smart, is it? There are a lot of jets these days and a lot of geese competing for airspace. It's a numbers game and as the numbers climb higher, so does the probability that conflicts will arise. Same goes for ATC, there are growing numbers in the pattern. Bird strikes are going to happen. Awkward ATC is going to happen. So, as we both are saying here, dealing with this inevitability is a part of the pilot's job. And the pilot is well equipped to deal with it.

                              We generally don't see "failure on the part of the goose to maintain adequate traffic separation" listing as a contributing factor. If we are going to list inevitable circumstances as contributing factors, we should probably list this as well.

                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              Yes, but a lot less often. Think GPWS, for example.
                              That's a perfect example of useful accident report conclusions leading to constructive improvements. GPWS was designed to reduce CFIT accidents by giving the pilots another indication in the cockpit. Because that's where the problem has to be dealt with, in the cockpit. AFAIK, there is still nothing in the tower that says "SINK RATE" "PULL UP".

                              My next-level suggestion, hopefully arising from the findings of this accident report, is an aural cockpit warning that says "THRUST IDLE LIMIT" under very specific circumstances where prolonging idle will make it impossible to arrest the descent and maintain a 3° approach path below 500' at the target speed. Like you said earlier about your suggestion, this could be done with a mere software improvement

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                That's a perfect example of useful accident report conclusions leading to constructive improvements. GPWS was designed to reduce CFIT accidents by giving the pilots another indication in the cockpit. Because that's where the problem has to be dealt with, in the cockpit. AFAIK, there is still nothing in the tower that says "SINK RATE" "PULL UP".

                                My next-level suggestion, hopefully arising from the findings of this accident report, is an aural cockpit warning that says "THRUST IDLE LIMIT" under very specific circumstances where prolonging idle will make it impossible to arrest the descent and maintain a 3° approach path below 500' at the target speed. Like you said earlier about your suggestion, this could be done with a mere software improvement
                                Actually it could be even simpler than that. The same computer that monitors descent rate vs. distance to the ground could also monitor engine thrust and a few other parameters, and make a determination about the aircraft's energy state. Then if circumstances warrant, a two-word addition to the above message: "SINK RATE - INCREASE POWER - PULL UP".

                                I find it interesting that with all the spirited debate here about whether the computer(s) or pilot(s) should fly the plane, there's never much mention of what I'd consider the middle ground, which is having the automation provide advisory messages. How might British Midland flight 92 have turned out differently if some display had shown clearly and in large letters "L ENGINE SEVERE FAULT" or something to that effect?
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X