Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
    I've been out on a trip and had to leave my computer at home, so I haven't had a chance to read through all the posts, but I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I think this is going to be a big eye-opener for some folks. I've flown with several people who have worked for various asian airlines and let's just say that the CRM we're used to in the US is not their strongest point...

    But you are correct in saying that this issue is not limited to the asian cultures--the KLM/PAA accident at Tenerife was caused by a captain who was very much in charge discounting the second officer's concerns that Pan Am was not clear of the runway. That was one of the landmark accidents that lead to the CRM culture we have in this country (and most European countries) today. Hopefully this will serve as an eye-opener and bring some focus back on the subject.

    Im stealing your signature. You never know when big brother is watching!
    I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
      Oh, please!

      ITS is the kind of person from whom you learn nothing.
      He is anti-composites, unless it is Boeing composites we are talking about.
      He made "highly-technical analysis", indicating tailfin separation caused AF447, days after the crash.
      He had you scared to board a "scarebus" for 2 years.
      Fear-mongering and hate for the foreign competition....unless you are one of those "patriotic" Americans and want to go that way, because it makes you feel proud.
      I'm really disappointed you haven't learned a thing. Maybe because you only listen to ITS?
      Chill out now! Wow!

      Calm down. It's going to be okay.

      It was a joke.
      I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        Flying large airplanes around on 8 plus hour legs is kind of boring. The only fun part is the take off and the landing. Most of us became pilots because we love to fly. Unless the weather is what we refer to as dog s**t, or it has been an extremely log day and we are tired,(Some of our legs are 15 - 16 hours) we will usually kick off the auto pilot about 5 miles out and hand fly the approach. As many of you here have pointed out landing a 152 is not really that much different than landing a 747. You are just going a little faster! and take up a lot more runway!!

        What airline do you work for? Domestic here in the US?
        I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          Not only that, it was also his very first landing in SFO in the 777. Can you imagine that?

          Of course, there is another side of the coin:

          The captain under supervision, 9700 hours total flying experience with 5000 hours in command, type ratings for B737, B747 and A320 having been ground instructor and sim instructor as well captain on A320s from 2005 to 2013, had flown 10 legs for a total of 35 hours on the Boeing 777-200 so far and was about half way through his supervision, and had 29 landings into San Francisco on other aircraft types before. (Source: AvHerald.com)

          Not to mention that every single pilot had at a time 43 hours of experience in every airplane type where he logged more than 43 hours. And I got my pilot licence with 43 hours total (44 with the check ride).
          OK, so we know the dude has flown other equipment into SFO. This was his first 777. With that said, since he has not seen how the 777 might act on approach there, would it not have been smarter to have the Instructor bring it in so the training pilot could make observations? I don't know. It makes more sense to ME that the pilot and instructor are paired for a few flights, at least two to SFO so the pilot getting signed off will have the full benefit of having observed how it was done rather than doing it himself the first time?

          Sorta OT: I don't know how many of you fly into SFO at all. I do it every two months or so. There is no room for error on that approach. When the plane's shadow catches up with it, you're still over the bay. It's like, water, water, water, rocks, threshold. Landing short is not an option. It is really kinda nerve-racking.
          I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

          Comment


          • Revved up like a deuce another runner in the night.

            Wrong forum!


            Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
            Blinding light = oh f@*%! we've screwed the pooch!
            Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
            I'm struggling with the blinded by the light story. Where did it come from? The sun would have been very high in the sky and the idea of a laser just doesn't strike me as likely, particularly since they were gyrating all over the sky at that point. Does the CVR record anything like "what was that bright light? I can't see!"?
            I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Myndee View Post
              OK, I GUESS WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO DO THIS BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T LISTEN TO THE GOOD ADVICE GABRIEL GAVE TO YOU.
              Myndee,

              I think it is not necessary to stir this pot, not now.
              You are replying to a post that, how much, one week old?, and BB has not been behaving like this since then. Maybe after all he did listen to the feedback.

              If I may, let me suggest you to cut it here and BB not to reply you (in this specific post, I mean), not in the open at least.

              Finally, although I haven't seen BB's driving or pilot's license, from talks I had with him in PM I really doubt very much that he is a 14 y/o simmer.

              By the way, do you know any US airline (or from any other country) that makes DOMESTIC 16-hours legs in a 747?

              JMHO.

              --- 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 snydersnapshots View Post
                KTVU screwed the pooch on the pilot names. Obviously someone got the same e-mail my dad sent me...

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZR4E...ature=youtu.be

                Along more serious lines, here's a reconstruction of the accident:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?client=...are&nomobile=1
                While I certainly do not support mocking others due to their skin color or ethnicity...I don't feel that was a dig on anyone in particular. It really just shows the ignorance of the media.
                I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                  OK, so we know the dude has flown other equipment into SFO. This was his first 777. With that said, since he has not seen how the 777 might act on approach there, would it not have been smarter to have the Instructor bring it in so the training pilot could make observations? I don't know. It makes more sense to ME that the pilot and instructor are paired for a few flights, at least two to SFO so the pilot getting signed off will have the full benefit of having observed how it was done rather than doing it himself the first time?

                  Sorta OT: I don't know how many of you fly into SFO at all. I do it every two months or so. There is no room for error on that approach. When the plane's shadow catches up with it, you're still over the bay. It's like, water, water, water, rocks, threshold. Landing short is not an option. It is really kinda nerve-racking.
                  I don't agree really. It was not his first landing on the 777. It was not his first landing in SFO. It was his first combination of both. And they were on a long 20 NM straight-in perfect daylight weather. SFO had nothing to do with it. The particular "technique" (or lack of it) that they used coupled to their disregard for the stabilized approach criteria had.

                  And I don't agree with the "no margin for error" statement. The pilots aim to a point 1000ft down the runway, and to that you have to add like 500ft of displaced treshold (the white arrow) + non-runway tarmac (the yellow chevrons). And then because of the round-off and flare you have maybe another 500ft to the actual touchdown point. So the margin of error is between 1500 and 2000ft.

                  Surely, if you miss the runway by that much you will end on the water (or the sea wall, like this case) and not on on smooth grass, so the margin of error is smaller than some other airports. But smaller is not zero or anywhere close to that.

                  --- 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 Myndee View Post
                    Sorta OT: I don't know how many of you fly into SFO at all. I do it every two months or so. There is no room for error on that approach. When the plane's shadow catches up with it, you're still over the bay. It's like, water, water, water, rocks, threshold. Landing short is not an option. It is really kinda nerve-racking.
                    It may be kinda nerve-racking if you're not the pilot (or perhaps for even for some pilots...), but the runway is where you're aiming, not the water. And runways are runways for the most part, as someone stated earlier in the thread. You always try to land on the runway. Landing short (and more so at a high pitch angle) is not really an option at any runway.

                    To quote some folk who do this for a living:

                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    Your guess is as good as any! Not even taking into consideration the displaced threshold, he should have been aiming 1000' down the runway.
                    Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
                    Even if the tail had cleared the sea wall, it would have impacted the runway before the landing gear given the length of the plane and the pitch attitude to maintain the airspeed...
                    By the way, BB admitted to a burst of frustration. Right now, you're the one that's not acting your age.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      I don't agree really. It was not his first landing on the 777. It was not his first landing in SFO. It was his first combination of both. And they were on a long 20 NM straight-in perfect daylight weather. SFO had nothing to do with it. The particular "technique" (or lack of it) that they used coupled to their disregard for the stabilized approach criteria had.

                      And I don't agree with the "no margin for error" statement. The pilots aim to a point 1000ft down the runway, and to that you have to add like 500ft of displaced treshold (the white arrow) + non-runway tarmac (the yellow chevrons). And then because of the round-off and flare you have maybe another 500ft to the actual touchdown point. So the margin of error is between 1500 and 2000ft.

                      Surely, if you miss the runway by that much you will end on the water (or the sea wall, like this case) and not on on smooth grass, so the margin of error is smaller than some other airports. But smaller is not zero or anywhere close to that.
                      With such a high AoA and rapidly decaying airspeed, even full thrust would have struggled to regain control even if he was 500ft higher.
                      Looking at it as an energy rather than positional situation, the amount of drag in that specific configuration, I think he would have needed more than 1000 to recover into controlled flight.

                      As snydersnapshots mentioned, even if he had cleared the wall, that severity of tailstrike may have had equally devastating results. Who knows, possibly worse. The 360 spin did much to dissipate the energy.

                      Circumstantial cause is I agree, lack of airmanship and failure to follow unstabilized approach procedure. Root cause I believe lies in the possibility that the system and culture the airline established failed to ensure flight crew competence.

                      Comment


                      • My brother, who holds every rating except ATP and CFI, suggested that to some degree these pilots are trained from day one to fly automated systems and that there's very little general aviation where they would learn true stick and rudder flying.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Myndee,

                          I think it is not necessary to stir this pot, not now.
                          You are replying to a post that, how much, one week old?, and BB has not been behaving like this since then. Maybe after all he did listen to the feedback.

                          If I may, let me suggest you to cut it here and BB not to reply you (in this specific post, I mean), not in the open at least.

                          Finally, although I haven't seen BB's driving or pilot's license, from talks I had with him in PM I really doubt very much that he is a 14 y/o simmer.

                          By the way, do you know any US airline (or from any other country) that makes DOMESTIC 16-hours legs in a 747?

                          JMHO.

                          Thank you Gabriel! I will be glad to furnish Myndee my credentials on request. If you take a look at my avatar you can probably guess who I work for.

                          BB

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                            OK, so we know the dude has flown other equipment into SFO. This was his first 777. With that said, since he has not seen how the 777 might act on approach there, would it not have been smarter to have the Instructor bring it in so the training pilot could make observations? I don't know. It makes more sense to ME that the pilot and instructor are paired for a few flights, at least two to SFO so the pilot getting signed off will have the full benefit of having observed how it was done rather than doing it himself the first time?
                            Sorry, no excuse. They (3 of them) screwed up, period, end of story. It shouldn't matter if they're flying a 777 or a King Air, nobody was monitoring fundamental flight info. Even the instructor missed the decaying airspeed. The pilot flying should have seen he was low even w/out looking at the air speed (e.g. he presumably was looking out the window at the PAPI).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                              Sorta OT: I don't know how many of you fly into SFO at all. I do it every two months or so. There is no room for error on that approach. When the plane's shadow catches up with it, you're still over the bay. It's like, water, water, water, rocks, threshold. Landing short is not an option. It is really kinda nerve-racking.
                              No room for error? Nerve-racking? What?!?! hahah christ. If a commercial airline pilot finds SFO runways 28 L/R nerve-racking to land on, I do not ever want that person flying me anywhere. Those are 11,000ft+ long 200ft wide runways with ample room for error, absolutely no obstructions or terrain whatsoever on the final. The winds were light, the conditions were CAVOK. You really can't ask for an easier situation to land an airplane in.

                              Landing that far short is NEVER an option, at almost all airports. Had these pilots done this at LAX on runway 24R, where visual approaches on sunny days are common, the outcome would likely have been far worse, there is a major highway that curves around the end of the runway approximately the same place as the sea wall they hit, along with a limousine parking lot, not to mention the runway is 150ft wide and just shy of 9,000ft long, and sits right next to a busy active departure parallel.

                              Comment


                              • FAO Myndee

                                I tried the nice approach.

                                Repeating, you really do make overly bold posts and assertions.

                                And Boeing Bobby was actually pretty correct in his assesment of you (he just happend to use hard honesty, and the truth does sometimes hurt).

                                The main thing I will bring up is that when you did reply to my "nice post", you did not touch on any of the the actual suggestions or criticisms of your posts. That would be a flaming example of a totally closed mind, ignorance, and inability to listen.

                                Yeah, Boeing Bobby can be a grumpy old man and I even made the nasty jab about ED which he denies and I genuinely belive him (just like I belive his statements about his credientials)

                                He's awfully darn factual, accurate, correct and a decent judge of folks posts...and the sucker listened and turned the grumpiness down 1.5 notches and suddenly we all love him. (Not only that, he's on record supporting ITS).

                                ...you are the one who is a troll who is coming on here spewing over the top bullcrap.

                                But sadly, you will again deny it.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X