Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

777 Crash and Fire at SFO

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

  • Originally posted by phoneman View Post
    After reading this I am never flying Asiana or KAL. I'll even fly Air France if I have to...
    DITTO![/quote]

    You better add a whole list of airlines as this culture and level of competency is not unique.

    However, the overall level of statistical safety across all airlines makes that a bit overkill, as you'd have to stop driving cars and making toast if you are that worried!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post

      You better add a whole list of airlines as this culture and level of competency is not unique.

      However, the overall level of statistical safety across all airlines makes that a bit overkill, as you'd have to stop driving cars and making toast if you are that worried!
      I do it the other way around. I make a list of airlines I think I can trust and fly them whenever possible (I used to trust Air France until they allowed the 3 Stooges to stumble into their A330 cockpit). I will pay more to fly with them. If there's one single thing I've learned from this forum, it is that safety culture is by far the most important consideration if you want to lower your risk of having more takeoffs then landings...

      Now, if a pilot for a certain airline attempts a tailhook landing with a 777 at SFO, and then I read something as damning as that SIM instructor's account of said airline, where line pilots are rote and talentless and politics are trumping safety, I will never fly on that airline, period. (Unless it was the fall of Saigon and I had to choose between that and a bayonet). That's not toast and cars my friend, that's darwinism.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
        OK, ambulance chasing has begun... There is already a low-energy warning. It's called stickshaker. A warning above stickshaker really shouldn't be necessary, but an announcement like "warning, idle thrust" after a certain period of time and sink-rate triggered at a certain altitude might have prevented this one. But then we should just get rid of the pilots, really.
        it's comments like this that cause problems. "ambulance chasing?" i'm 100% sure if you were on that plane and were left paralyzed like some may have been, or injured and still in critical condition, or if it was your daughter that was killed you would be saying the same thing.

        your one year absence hasn't changed anything about you.

        when it came to piss poor country of the comoros, you were yelling daily about how they need to spend money on an extensive SAR system for the infinitesimally rare water accident. but now you are railing against a simple voice announcement that says "speed" when the airspeed falls below a certain velocity. yeah, cuz that would cost so much and be so impossibly difficult to add to the system.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dispatch Dog View Post
          Capt Van Zanten...I have never been able to reconcile the man I met with his actions of that day in 1977.
          Most (not all) planes that crashed are piloted by competent, caring folks who are highly regarded for their skill and professionalism and dedication to safety...

          ...and almost all planes that crash are piloted by human beings.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            This was sent out to a bunch of us by one of our check airman a few minutes ago. Take it for what it is worth:

            no need to quote the entire piece and waster forum space...

            the problem i have with these types of emails/letters/communiques, is that they always seem to surface right after something shitty happens, and the guy/gal writing it sat on their ass and did nothing for YEARS. imagine that! an american pilot working in asia, has tons of evidence that asian carriers that fly to the US are cutting corners in a huge way when it comes to safety and training, yet says nothing to anyone?

            sorry, but if this is a true story and "Tom" did and saw and experienced what he claims, he should be put in jail for criminal negligence.

            unfortunately, he was obviously more concerned with what i'm sure what a nice fat paycheck at the time.

            Comment


            • Is it mandatory that autopilot be off during landing? How close are planes to landing themselves?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                it's comments like this that cause problems. "ambulance chasing?" i'm 100% sure if you were on that plane and were left paralyzed like some may have been, or injured and still in critical condition, or if it was your daughter that was killed you would be saying the same thing.
                Guess what TeeVee, the victims don't need a lawyer here, the lawyer needs the victims. I resent how they will find as many 'culpable' entities as possible to enhance the pot, dragging them all into a web of blame knowing they will probably get something quietly in settlement to avoid the publicity.

                Yet Boeing has no culpabilily here. They built a fantastic machine and all they ask is that the pilots remember to fly it. If the pilots have their hands and eyes where they belong, that's all the warning they should ever need or expect.

                I'm not against added measures of safety. I'm against ambulance chasers who victimize good innocent people for their own gain.

                Comment


                • Digital flight recorder data show that flight crews who continue through an unstabilized condition below 500 feet will likely never get the approach stabilized.

                  Source: Boeing literature (paraphased by NY Times)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
                    Is it mandatory that autopilot be off during landing? How close are planes to landing themselves?
                    Autoland was first introduced in 1968 on the Sud Aviation Caravelle followed in 1972 by the Hawker Siddeley type 121 Trident. Automatic landings are a regular occurrence every day at many airports around the world with some airlines requiring autoland to be used regularly in good VFR weather to ensure systems effectiveness for the day when the feature is REALLY needed.
                    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                      You almost need a degree in crashing the 777. I stick to my prediction that CRM failed to save this aircraft. I hope I am wrong.
                      Same goes for any modern Airbus, but it just happens sometimes. So this "you really have to try to crash it" attitude gets one nowhere

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        some airlines requiring autoland to be used regularly in good VFR weather to ensure systems effectiveness for the day when the feature is REALLY needed.

                        I didn't know this Brian. It raises the question of competence when auto land isn't available, such as was the situation in the SFO crash. I'm basically a glider pilot, and I never had auto land or a missed approach go around (though admittedly a few when flying SEL).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                          5. Bring back ITS.
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            I am famous for getting angry when these things happen and saying things like "Wasn't somebody supposed to be FLYING the plane? Didn't they note the speed decay in the Primary Flight Display, that has the words Primary and Flight in its name for a good reason?"

                            However, since the error is not impossible, it WILL happen with a certain frequency depending on its likelihood.

                            So even if you put a low likelihood, like the two pilots don't making this combined mistake in a 99.9999% of the cases, this leaves the opportunity for this incident to happen every 1 million flights. And does happen from time to time, sometimes with the fortune to happen a couple hundred feet higher to enable a recovery before hitting something.

                            A study showed that in every flight there are mistakes. And several.
                            Of course, the system is designed robust, so a human mistake doesn't down a plane in the vast majority of the cases. The mistakes are almost always detected by the offender, or by the other crewmember, or during a checklist, or by some airplane system (like the GPWS).

                            In very few cases, the holes of the Swiss cheese will align to let an airplane fly through them to an accident. And as long as humans are part of the loop, these things will unavoidably keep happening.

                            The key is to work to minimize the likelihood and hence the frequency not only of the mistakes themselves, but of them propagating to cause an accident.
                            And I am famous for telling you to back off...that humans make mistakes, etc. In this case, however, I am just as indignant as you. Perhaps more so. I usually subscribe to the philosophy that, as Ernest Gann so eloquently put it, "Only very rarely will a pilot expose his own bowl of fortune cookies to the possibility of air decay and be tempted into blurting out what is sometimes the undeniable truth..."

                            I'll be the first to admit that I make mistakes in airplanes... But in this case, I am going to take out my fortune cookies and state that I don't see how FOUR pilots can shoot an approach without looking at the airspeed for the last several seconds of the approach! So...I'm guessing that SOMEONE must have seen the airspeed getting low. Not only that, but the guys with more time in the 777 should have realized just from the sight picture outside that something wasn't right. So, I'm betting that SOMEBODY knew things were going horribly wrong. I find it unconscionable that NOBODY SAID ANYTHING!!!

                            I think the truth is going to come down to cultural issues vs. CRM. If my gut feeling is right, I truly hope this causes the same changes in the Asian airlines that the KLM/PAA accident did for European and US airlines.
                            The "keep my tail out of trouble" disclaimer: Though I work in the airline industry, anything I post on here is my own speculation or opinion. Nothing I post is to be construed as "official" information from any air carrier or any other entity.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                              Autoland was first introduced in 1968 on the Sud Aviation Caravelle followed in 1972 by the Hawker Siddeley type 121 Trident. Automatic landings are a regular occurrence every day at many airports around the world with some airlines requiring autoland to be used regularly in good VFR weather to ensure systems effectiveness for the day when the feature is REALLY needed.

                              Again you are spot on Brian, We have to do an auto-land in each aircraft every 15 days and annotate it in the aircraft log. This keeps the aircraft legal for CAT 2 & CAT 3 approaches when they are required.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                Again you are spot on Brian, We have to do an auto-land in each aircraft every 15 days and annotate it in the aircraft log. This keeps the aircraft legal for CAT 2 & CAT 3 approaches when they are required.
                                Question BB. Do you prefer to hand fly the approach or let the auto land do it? I bet I know the answer.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X