Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    So... maybe it got close to the final position first and then it was dragged by the plane coming behind. Just speculating.
    Could be Garbiel.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
      Could be Garbiel.
      Or could be someone else

      --- 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


      • According to Asianna it was the first time the pilot had flown a 777 into SFO and that he was in training.

        Comment


        • Given this image, I wonder if the engine next to the plane is really #2 after all.


          Image: http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

          --- 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
            Or could be someone else
            Yeah, yeah, or big fingers on a tablet

            Comment


            • Im not following the great interest in where engine 2 came to rest.

              Looking at the end of the video where the plane is basically up on its nose with sheet flying everywhere , it's location can only mean it may or may not have been with the rolling pile of metal . So what ?

              Comment


              • AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                Originally posted by orangehuggy
                the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
                  Im not following the great interest in where engine 2 came to rest.

                  Looking at the end of the video where the plane is basically up on its nose with sheet flying everywhere , it's location can only mean it may or may not have been with the rolling pile of metal . So what ?
                  Nothing significant, really. Just for the sake of the discussion.

                  At one point there was a question whether the final position of the engine could be related to the engine producing a significant thrust at the moment of impact, and that could have been significant when we were wondering about possible thrust problems.

                  But now it's a moot point. We know that the engines were working normally, left at idle until the last seconds, and when thrust was advanced they started to spool up normally, but it was too late.

                  --- 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
                    According to Asianna it was the first time the pilot had flown a 777 into SFO and that he was in training.
                    http://news.yahoo.com/asiana-says-pi...010133596.html
                    That seems to support this update from cnn ... note the last sentence...

                    "The pilot sitting in the captain's seat of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was identified as Lee Kang-gook, Choi Jeong-ho, the head of the South Korea's Aviation Policy Bureau, said Sunday. Lee had 43 hours of experience flying the B777-200, he said."

                    Comment






                    • AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008

                      Originally posted by orangehuggy
                      the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Nothing significant, really. Just for the sake of the discussion.

                        At one point there was a question whether the final position of the engine could be related to the engine producing a significant thrust at the moment of impact, and that could have been significant when we were wondering about possible thrust problems.

                        But now it's a moot point. We know that the engines were working normally, left at idle until the last seconds, and when thrust was advanced they started to spool up normally, but it was too late.
                        Gabriel I agree and didnt intend to imply there were thrust problems, my comment was just that a spooled up engine even after detachment could have scooted forward on the ground.

                        Overall i think the position of #2 engine is moot, I was just trying to justify how it may have ended up where it did.

                        I think this was case of inexperienced 777 pilot who didnt realize until rather too late that he was low and very slow, and didnt have the time and alt for a TOGA. Id guess maybe he needed another 50-100 feet alt at least and 15+ seconds time, although even then it would have been hairy is my guess given the wobbly approach / stall.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by obmot View Post
                          I think this was case of inexperienced 777 pilot who didnt realize until rather too late that he was low and very slow, and didnt have the time and alt for a TOGA. Id guess maybe he needed another 50-100 feet alt at least and 15+ seconds time, although even then it would have been hairy is my guess given the wobbly approach / stall.
                          Well, now we know with almost certainty that pilot error was a critical link in the chain of event... but.

                          It's hard for me to justify that he was inexperienced in the 777.

                          According to Asiana, he was quite experienced in other types.
                          I wonder what he was flying lately. A helicopter?
                          The nominal approach speed, 137kts, could have been the approach speed of about any Jet. A 3 degrees approach slope is the same in any airplane. The airspeed indicator of the 777 looks very similar to that of any EFIS airplane. The stabilized approach criteria is the same in any plane. And, again, according to Asiana, he had been in SFO several times before (in other types).

                          I mean, it was not the fine manipulation of the controls to match with precision the desired airplane response what failed here, or that he was looking for the "LAND" button that was placed in a different place in his previous plane.

                          --- 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


                          • The NTSB is posting a lot of photos on their Twitter page along with updates such as initial reports from the CVR and FDR.

                            Comment


                            • Gabriel, it certainly does look compelling: that they 'flew' into this situation. But sometimes there can be a very small occurance that triggers what seems like bizarre behaviour in hindsight.
                              'Human factors' can be complex and deceivingly easy to fall into during those critical moments and then very difficult to explain afterwards.

                              Spent one night with a new operations planning system. After being bombarded with new parameters and planning model info as well as a new logistics 'language'to learn, later at home, while still mentally plotting stratergy and tactics via unfamiliar inputs, I found myself putting toothpaste onto a fork iso my brush.

                              My excuse is that I'm old and used up, but the process of learning can reduce our general spatial awareness by varying degrees. Some people are better at it than others.

                              Does that make us bad or incompetent? I guess in relative terms... yes! But I use the term 'human factor' rather than pilot error because without exception, every pilot has at some point operated with relatively reduced spatial awareness for one reason or another.

                              Sadly, human beings have human factors and I'm beginning to feel that automation is actually having a negative effect in many situations where the pilot may expect the plane to sort itself out or poke him on the shoulder when it can't.

                              On another note, there is a piece of wreckage in the water just infront of the sea wall. Can anyone tell what it is? Doesn't look like actual undercarriage structure but may be an U/C door or even inner flap?

                              Comment


                              • Yes, I know.

                                What I meant is that can't visualize the mechanics of how this happened.

                                I mean, if we take the Turkish case, I was one of those loudly asking who on Earth was flying the plane since nobody noted any of the half dozen of early warnings (not stabilized approach, airspeed decaying well below Vref for a lot of seconds, the nose going higher and higher well above typical approach settings with most of the PFD becoming blue, wrong Flight Annunciation Mode, all of them shown in the Primary Flight Display that have the words Primary and Flight in its name for a reason).

                                However, a distracted crew not behaving professionally can miss all that as they let the AP flight. In this case, the AP kept tracking the glide slope by applying increasingly amounts of nose-up inputs to compensate for the decaying speed. All this can happen transparently to a distracted crew.

                                However, in this case the situation was different.
                                - They were in a visual approach and there was no glide slope signal.
                                - They were likely not using the AP, not even in vert speed node, since their vertical speed was constantly varying for the last 50 seconds or so. In any event, unlike the 737, the AP of the 777 won't stall the plane because it has envelope protection.
                                - If they were manually flying, for at least the 80 seconds that we have the info from FlightAware, they would have necessarily be applying the increasing amounts of nose-up inputs and pull force that the AP would have applied (like in the TK case), and not only that, but in the 777 as you approach the stall AoA the force needed to keep increasing the AoA even further increases disproportionately (more than it would in a non-FBW plane) as part of the envelope protection.

                                So it's not that I don't understand how the pilots can mentally fall in this kind of incidents. It's more that I don't understand the muscle part of it (or technical, if it was the AP).

                                Regarding the part of the plane in the water, it's likely part of the bottom of the tailcone, I guess.

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X