Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • So the 777 has been in service for 19 years and has flown 5 million flights* and only now is Asiana complaining that landing requires "piloting skills"

    * http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commerc.../pf_facts.page

    Comment


    • That's because apparently they just found out!
      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

      Eric Law

      Comment


      • Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

        On Mar 31st 2014 Asiana submitted a 46 page document [...]. At 1600 feet AGL the flight director/autopilot changed to FLCH [...] The pilot flying disconnected the autopilot, called "manual flight". As the aircraft was still high and fast, he pulled the thrust levers to idle, which changed the autothrust function from thrust to hold disabling airspeed protection and automatic wake up function.
        In fact, it is disabled when the plane descends below 100 ft in an approach. If it didn't do so, I could see Asiana complaining for another accident where "the plane didn't let the pilot bleed speed during the flare, as the stupid speed protection kept increasing thrust to keep Vref and the airplane made a low fly-by of the whole runway at 10 ft and Vref with the pilot not understanding why the plane would not bleed speed and settle on the runway."

        At 500 feet AGL the aircraft was on glide (PAPI two red, two white) at 135 KIAS 2 knots below VREF still within stabilized approach criteria.
        Remember me NOT to fly Asiana EVER!!!!!!

        Dear Asiana: If you are in a vertical dive, when you CROSS THROUGH the glide slope you ARE NOT STABILIZED on the glide slope. If you CROSS THRUGH Vref in your way from "way too fast" to "stall" you are NOT STABILIZED on Vref.

        It's amazing that they says something so stupid in public. They are lucky that most of the persons don't understand a thing about how to operate an airplane, because this is a confession not that the pilots made an error, but that they AS A COMPANY don't fucking understand how to fucking fly a fucking plane. They should be banned from the skies for good.

        During the next 17 seconds the airspeed decreased to 118 KIAS and the aircraft descended to 200 feet AGL, the PAPI now showed 4 reds (below glide). 7 seconds later a quadruple chime sounded, the pilot flying advanced the thrust levers to go around and called "go-around"
        let me see if I understand. So, the target speed (Vapp) was likely Vref+5. It probably took at least a couple of seconds to go from Vapp to Vref-2. Then we have 17 seconds until 4 red lights (let me guess that there was a point of 3 red - 1 white lights between the 2 red - 2 white and the 4 red point, already indicating that the plane was too low). Then another 7 seconds until the quad chime which, by the way, was an EICAS "LOW AIRSPEED" message. Not only that, but during all the descent since 1500ft the trim was not touched, so the pilot needed to keep increasing more and more the aft column pressure during all the slowing-down approach, which for a Tomahawk pilot is the best indication that you are slowing down (even better than the airspeed indicator), and the plane consequently was pitching up way above the normal approach pitch, which was not only clearly seen in the three attitude indicators (two of which are in the PRIMARY FLIGHT display just in front of each pilot) but also through the windshield in a perfect daylight VMC day, to the point that one pilot had to raise the seat to be able to have good visibility of the ground. However, all THREE pilots missed all these cues and only noticed that the speed was too slow let me see, 2+17+7= 26 SECONDS!!!!! after the speed went below the target speed, and even then NOT because they noted it by any of all those cues (including the airspeed being displayed in three airspeed indicators, two of them in the PRIMARY FLIGHT display just in front of each pilot and with a nice icon that marks the target speed), but because they were waken up by a quad chime and an EICAS message telling "you morons didn't note that the speed is too low"?

        The fact that the pilots made such a gross mistake is concerning enough, the fact that the airline makes this defense is criminal!!!!

        A lot more good and interesting new stuff in AvHerald. Evan will love it.

        Oh, and please, remember me NOT to fly Asiana EVER!!!!!! (what, have I said it already?)

        It's not because of this accident, but for their reaction after it.

        It's a SHAME.

        --- 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


        • It's not just a SHAME Gabriel ......... It's an astounding CRIMINAL ACT that they should be totally ASHAMED of. All those people in the cockpit.... I refuse to refer to them as pilots.... totally FAILED in performing their jobs thus causing death and destruction. All they needed to do was what every 777 crew does just about every minute of every day....follow procedures.
          Full stop.
          End of exercise.

          Those "people in the cockpit" should be taken into custody in the USA and charged with second degree murder. Manslaughter doesn't cover it, it's murder2 due to their astounding inability and total FUCKING INCOMPETENCE.

          Do I sound angry ? Bloody right I am. It goes without saying that I will NEVER fly Asiana along with a couple of other Asian airlines such as Korean and EVA. I simply no longer trust the Asian flight sector capabilities, especially when you take into account "I'm the boss" attitudes on their flight decks with first officers bowing to seniority.

          End rant !
          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

            The fact that the pilots made such a gross mistake is concerning enough, the fact that the airline makes this defense is criminal!!!!

            A lot more good and interesting new stuff in AvHerald. Evan will love it.

            Oh, and please, remember me NOT to fly Asiana EVER!!!!!! (what, have I said it already?)

            It's not because of this accident, but for their reaction after it.

            It's a SHAME.
            Absolutely.

            Comment


            • Getting our knickers in a twist, are we Brian? What's your other hobby, hanging outside Court Houses yelling kill, kill?
              I bet all the Asian carriers losing your business are terribly upset.
              Per
              Ancient Mariner
              Certified above and below...................sea level.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                ...The three airspeed indicators, all showing a low speed...
                From years reading at aviation forums, I've heard some folks say that pitch controls airspeed, but others say that's not necessarily true and that power must be adjusted.

                ...and then there's all those bells and whistles on a modern plane.

                It's all so complicated, what's a person to do?
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  From years reading at aviation forums, I've heard some folks say that pitch controls airspeed, but others say that's not necessarily true and that power must be adjusted.

                  ...and then there's all those bells and whistles on a modern plane.

                  It's all so complicated, what's a person to do?
                  Leave it to the pro's and pray to what/whoever you believe in?
                  Per
                  Ancient Mariner
                  Certified above and below...................sea level.

                  Comment


                  • Per,
                    Sometimes your motives for posting totally bemuse me I don't see any smilies in your post so I have to assume you are serious. No, I don't hang around courthouses shouting "kill" at all. I do however get angry when I hear that a bunch of incompetents have killed by not doing their job..........and then having the the bare faced audacity to try to wriggle out of their responsibilities by blaming someone else for their inadequacies.
                    Asiana are based in a region where honour is an overpowering precept in their life.
                    There's bugger all honourable in what they are doing right now.

                    I have a good friend who flew 747 freighters for Asiana, Cargolux and previously British Airways in his passenger flying days. He retired recently with multi thousands of flight hours to his name. He tells me that that he would often hand fly the aircraft and would frequently pose theoretical problems to his crew to train them in emergency procedures. All the crews that he flew with looked forward to these problem solving lessons because it improved their piloting skills.......with the notable exception of the Asiana crews who frequently made excuses for not participating in his training methods. He had to watch them like a hawk because of their propensity to make basic piloting errors. He recalls their habit of going on to autopilot as soon as possible and staying on it for as long as possible on the theory that everything would be fine, the automated systems would take care of it. When he pointed out that an autopilot is nothing more than a computer and that if you put shit into a computer you get shit out he was met with blank stares. Their view was that if the settings were put in wrongly the autopilot would sort it out. They truly believed that an autopilot was capable of making autonomous decisions. Obviously not all Asian crews were this bad but apparently there were more than one would wish for. The frightening thing is that many of these junior officers would go on to passenger flight duties. The best that can be said of these bad eggs is that they were capable of operating an aircraft provided nothing went wrong. The sea wall at the end of the SFO runway gives evidence of what happens when it does go wrong.

                    So no Per, I won't be flying Asiana, I will tell anyone who wants to know why I won't be flying with them and fully realise that my not using their services won't affect them in the slightest. What it will affect though, far more importantly to me is my ability to stay alive when travelling by air.
                    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                    Comment


                    • i'll give it one chance in 200,000,000,000,000, but if the actions of the crew were as they are described, they could have been charged with involuntary manslaughter under california penal code 192(b), which provides:

                      an unlawful killing that takes place
                      1. during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), or
                      2. during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.

                      now, many would argue that flying, being the safest form of transportation, does not carry a high risk of death or great bodily harm. of course the vaunted safety factor depends entirely upon trained professionals doing their jobs without exception. still, it is likely that the safeness of flying itself would be a halfway decent defense for these idiots.

                      as for boeing, it will be interesting to see what they do in the lawsuit filed by the pax. as i've brought up several times prior, these mostly baseless lawsuits brought by opportunistic PLAINTIFFS and some attorneys, persist because our legislative and judicial systems fail to address them properly.

                      i've told you folks before that many suits are filed with the "hopes" of scaring a small settlement out of the defendant or its insurer, even though the PLAINTIFFS and their attorneys know that their case is weak, if not total BS. they do so because there is no real downside to filing. pay a small filing fee, spend a few hours drafting a complaint, etc. now, if there were laws/rules that required the PLAINTIFFS and their attorneys to pay the attorneys' fees and costs of the defendants, the landscape would change dramatically.

                      now, there are some laws and rules that provide for such stuff, for example Florida Statute 57.105 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, however, it is practically impossible to get a judge to apply either one of these against PLAINTIFFS or their attorneys. that attitude must change.

                      so, why is the word PLAINTIFFS in all caps? simple. no matter how despicable you thinks we attorneys are, we need clients to bring the suits. the client must decide whether we file the suit or not. the client must agree to what we do on her/his/their behalf. so if there weren't so many greedy, go sue the bastards PLAINTIFFS out there, there would be far less nonsense suits.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        ...they could have been charged with involuntary manslaughter under california penal code 192(b), which provides:

                        an unlawful killing that takes place
                        ...during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.

                        now, many would argue that flying, being the safest form of transportation, does not carry a high risk of death or great bodily harm. of course the vaunted safety factor depends entirely upon trained professionals doing their jobs without exception. still, it is likely that the safeness of flying itself would be a halfway decent defense for these idiots.
                        Actually IMHO, the fact that flying is almost always done "with due caution or circumspection" is *why* flying is so safe. Time and time again it's been shown that flying without due caution or circumspection can cause injury or death.

                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        so, why is the word PLAINTIFFS in all caps? simple. no matter how despicable you thinks we attorneys are, we need clients to bring the suits. the client must decide whether we file the suit or not. the client must agree to what we do on her/his/their behalf. so if there weren't so many greedy, go sue the bastards PLAINTIFFS out there, there would be far less nonsense suits.
                        That... is just plain silly. You've conveniently ignored the fact that without LAWYERS, plaintiffs either cannot, or in any case extremely rarely, file suits. Tell me, how many of the suits related to this accident were filed without the involvement of lawyers? I bet it's approximately 0% of them.

                        It's a little like saying that a botched root canal done by a dentist is the fault of the patient for coming to him/her with a toothache...
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • TeeVee,


                          The litigation habit, for so long the recognised centre of US law courts is spreading like a cancer here in the UK.....

                          However....

                          A friend was last year involved in a road traffic accident where the driver of a car he was following gently slowed to close the gap and then slammed the brakes on for no reason. The resulting collision hurt no one, names, addresses and insurance company details were exchanged and the other driver claimed that animal of some kind ran out in front of him.
                          Shortly after, the other driver put in a claim for injuries to himself and his 3 passengers which would normally have paid out several thousand pounds.

                          However.......

                          My mate was wise to the spate of insurance scams currently prevalent and had recently purchased a dash cam which clearly showed that no animal ran out and that there were no passengers in the car. The insurance company ran some checks and found that the car that stopped suddenly was basically a shed on wheels that had been bought for parts a few days earlier, had no MOT road worthiness certificate, no road tax and the insurance was for another vehicle in the drivers' name.

                          The insurance company took it court and got damages from the other driver. The other driver was also prosecuted for giving false statement, collusion with others (who were also prosecuted) for pecuniary gain, causing a road accident with intent to make a falsified insurance claim, no MOT, no road tax and driving while uninsured. He had a previous record so penalties were loss of driving licence for 2 years, 6 months imprisonment and £1000 damages.

                          All in all a result for justice for once.

                          All of which has absolutely bugger all to do with a B777 crash at SFO so I'd better get back on topic.
                          I would stab a guess that legal action by passengers and relatives of the deceased against the crew as individuals would be a bit of a non starter as they would be simply unable to pay the kind of damages that would be claimed.
                          Plaintiffs would therefore be forced to take action against the airline which, given Asiana's latest little gem in trying to blame Boeing would probably result in them throwing their hands up in horror and claiming that they are not responsible as they supplied the required levels of training. The plaintiffs would then be faced with the almost impossible task of proving that the training given simply did not work and that Asiana had failed to adequately audit their training.
                          I can see this one going on for a long time.
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            From years reading at aviation forums, I've heard some folks say that pitch controls airspeed, but others say that's not necessarily true and that power must be adjusted.
                            Look son. They could have:
                            a) Lowered the nose to gain speed. That would have increased the sink rate so then they should have added thrust to control the altitude, or.
                            b) Added thrust to increase the speed. That would have raised the nose so they would have had to push or relieve back pressure on the yoke to control the altitude.

                            So no matter of you control speed with the yoke and altitude with the throttles or the other way around. DO SOMETHING TO CONTROL SPEED AND ALTITUDE FOR GOD SAKE!

                            Capito now?

                            --- 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 brianw999 View Post
                              The plaintiffs would then be faced with the almost impossible task of proving that the training given simply did not work and that Asiana had failed to adequately audit their training.
                              I'm not so sure about that!

                              Depending on the judge/jury and the requirements of the law, you could definitely make a case that the incompetent performance of the pilots was proof that they were not trained/vetted/monitored properly. Or to put it another way: it's the company's responsibility to ensure that their employees' performance meets accepted standards, and they did not do that.
                              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                              Eric Law

                              Comment


                              • I think the law suit side of it is far simpler than that.

                                Asiana know they will be paying out. Thats not in question. Asiana are simply trying to mitigate some of their losses by getting Boeing to accept some percentage of guilt. All financial transactions between the big businesses as to who pays what percentage of the payouts.

                                The fact that they will be paying money is not in question.

                                As for lawsuits against crew individually - I believed (however may be wrong) that generally airlines effectively indemnify their crew - reason being as identified, that the airlines really are the only ones with the ability to pay out in the case of accidents. The idea being that the airline is ultimately responsible for the who they put in charge of their aircraft. It is an important concept, because were it to be determined otherwise, pilots would need professional insurance like the medical industry, and that isn't a path we want to go down.

                                I also don't believe that in this case it is reasonable to argue that they were flying without due caution or circumspection. Error, fatigue, inadequate training or incompetence, whichever floats your boat, are not 'flying without due caution'.

                                It is an interesting accident because the pilots involved were not inexperienced. Particularly the training Captain, who while inexperienced in training, had significant time on the 777. The trainee Captain also had significant wide body experience as an F/O, and a few thousand hours in command of an A320.

                                The accident has 'task fixation' written all over it. The pilot observing picked up that they were outside limits, but didn't ram home the point hard enough. There's clearly cultural issues, but it wasn't like one pilot was being macho and dominating - the two guys just got overloaded, and lost awareness.

                                Its interesting that when task fixation sets in, hearing is one of the first things to go. Its entirely possible they never heard the third pilot show is concerns with the operation, and never even realised that they were outside safe limits until it was too late. Its amazing what the human brain will do when it is overloaded.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X