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
    The difference being that taking off and putting their pants on were not mistakes.
    HA! It was certainly a mistake that these individuals were wearing certain aviator pants and taking off in the first place.

    But the chain of events really begins about 3000 years ago....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      And Evan, The CAA, come on now!
      BB, I don't know what CAA Asiana is regulated under, but your letter from Tom clearly indicates that they and other Korean operators are not being held to certain training standards:

      This solution has only been partially successful but still faces ingrained resistance from the Koreans. I lost track of the number of highly qualified instructors I worked with who were fired because they tried to enforce “normal” standards of performance.
      As anyone who has not been well under a rock these past years knows, big business will not regulate itself. So where is the CAA in all of this?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

        Dead Stick and Gabriel jump on me to forget vectoring/altitude because the pilots screwed up royally.





        The pilots screwed up royally, and I've got a private license and therefore know that they should be shot along with Evan, Deadstick and Gabriel who can't understand that being set up high could be a discussion-worthy factor.

        Peace, Love, and Strong Fundamental Airmanship to all!
        Oh for the love of Sky King, I didn't jump on you. I merely stated that no matter what ATC says, the PIC is the PIC and should do whatever is called for to make a successful landing. If ATC says maintain 15000 at two mile final, the PIC isn't supposed to say, I don't think so? So if ATC asks you to stay a little high on your 20 mile final, and you don't see it as being a problem (not that we even know ATC asked for any such thing in this case) you don't figure out a way to comply (if you're the PIC) or squawk at them about unreasonable requests? And why would ATC even do that? I know they sometimes ask you to slow down for traffic ahead, or do s turns for separation, but stay high on approach? Never heard of it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          How do you figure?

          “If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred”.
          Can’t find who said this, but I say hogwash!

          And Evan, The CAA, come on now!


          This is really NO different than the AF crash. Which I said from day one on that thread and was clobbered there as well. SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE MINDING THE STORE AT ALL TIMES PERIOD.

          NO BLUE FONT INSERTED!

          ATC can't come up and fly the airplane for you. Management can't as well.
          I have a saying that goes that there are a few things that you don't have anything less when you share it: Love, knowledge, accountability.

          An irresponsible pilot is 100% accountable for his decisions, but not for failing to kick his butt off the system.

          The management cannot fly the plane for the pilot, but they are 100% accountable for failing in their leadership towards a healthy safety culture and/or failing to correct or get rid of the pilots that won't fit in that culture.

          Or re-read my other thread, where you've agreed 110%.

          --- 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 Evan View Post
            But the chain of events really begins about 3000 years ago....
            And who will you blame for that "mistake"?
            "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

            --- 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 BoeingBobby View Post
              How do you figure?

              “If they got good vectors, the crash probably would not have occurred”.
              Can’t find who said this, but I say hogwash!

              I said it.

              and Hogwash? No, not at all and it's oh so simple:

              Vector them to somewhere near the outer marker at roughly 1500 feet above the ground and at 150 knots and I bet a beer they figure out that they need to power up long before they wind up over the approach lights out of speed, altitude and ideas.

              In that case, the world never knows that these three are capable of royally failing to watch the ASI for amazing amounts of time, unable to halfway follow a glide slope and unable to deal with autothrottles or manualthrottles, and Sum Ting Wong, Wi Theiu Lo, and Ho Lee Phuoc never get their names shown on a TV station....
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                ATC asks you to stay high on approach? Never heard of it.
                Don't play stupid...or are you really that stupid?

                With some regularity, ATC sets planes up too high and or too close and or two fast...

                They don't mean to, but the big aluminum tubes in 3D space are reduced to dots and text on a little 2D screen and there's conflicting traffic the planes have to fly over and other planes on downwind with planes coming more straight in.

                They are human beings and sometimes wind up bringing planes quite high and close in.

                It happens a lot. (Please re-read the previous sentence)

                And, most of the time the guys go around when they are too screwed up to fix things by the magical 500 ft mark.

                And, on several occasions, (in severe VMC no less), I have seen planes tell the tower they can't make it because approach got them on final too close, and or two high and or too fast.

                Now, on a couple of occasions, some Southwest airlines guys were kind of high and fast and wound up scraping the paint job, damaging some fences and in one case killing a kid in a car.

                Guess what,they should have gone around.

                But they didn't.

                It's overwhelmingly the pilots fault, but if ATC had set them up more 'gently'...no crashes.

                Sorry that you have never heard of this sort of thing.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  yes, but for what it's worth....

                  I've seen things like:

                  "The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was impact with a tree as the result of the pilot's decision to continue the approach below the published minimums in dark night conditions with weather below IMC minimums.

                  Contributors to this accident were the weather conditions, the dark night and the tree."


                  They always forget to mention the take-off, which is a necessary link in the chain of events that lead to most aviation accidents.
                  (Satire!)
                  And completing the report and probable cause:
                  - Pilot's decision to take off (Main Cause)
                  - ATC at departing AP decision to give take-off clearance
                  - ATC at arriving AP to give landing clearance.
                  - Additional investigation on why the runway was constructed 50m shorter and placed at incorrect co-ordinates (contributing).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    I have a saying that goes that there are a few things that you don't have anything less when you share it: Love, knowledge, accountability.

                    An irresponsible pilot is 100% accountable for his decisions, but not for failing to kick his butt off the system.

                    The management cannot fly the plane for the pilot, but they are 100% accountable for failing in their leadership towards a healthy safety culture and/or failing to correct or get rid of the pilots that won't fit in that culture.

                    Or re-read my other thread, where you've agreed 110%.
                    This is an interesting path to go down..

                    An irresponsible pilot is 100% accountable for his decisions, but not for failing to kick his butt off the system.

                    The management cannot fly the plane for the pilot, but they are 100% accountable for failing in their leadership towards a healthy safety culture and/or failing to correct or get rid of the pilots that won't fit in that culture, but not for resisting their masters (the shareholders) by putting safety before profits.

                    The Civil Aviation Authority is 100% accountable for making sure the airline management doesn't put profits before safety. But not for resisting bribes and denying appointments based on cronyism and corruption and giving themselves an FAA Category 2 rating.

                    The FAA is 100% responsible for rating the CAA standards of foriegn carriers and banning those that do not meet category 1 requirements. But not for resisiting bribes, denying appointments based on cronyism and corruption and sorting out their bureaucratic mess.

                    And so on...

                    Still, After reading that letter from Tom I would like to see Korea get a cat 2 rating from this accident until they can prove these policies have been changed and new standards are being enforced.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      [/B]


                      This part of your post is again completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
                      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.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Don't play stupid...or are you really that stupid?
                        Do you really have to use inflammatory language? Are you really that insecure?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                          With some regularity, ATC sets planes up too high and or too close and or two fast...
                          What is "with some regularity?" Every day? Every five minutes? Please cite your source for this statement. Are you an ATP that experiences this phenomenon frequently? Is there a data base of pilot complaints against controllers leaving their approach in a challenging or dangerous situation?

                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          They don't mean to, but the big aluminum tubes in 3D space are reduced to dots and text on a little 2D screen and there's conflicting traffic the planes have to fly over and other planes on downwind with planes coming more straight in.
                          So you're saying there's a level of incompetence associated with ATC. Are you also a controller? Have you had lots of issues with controllers leaving you with a challenging, if not flat out dangerous, dive from the heavens to try to make the runway?

                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          They are human beings and sometimes wind up bringing planes quite high and close in.
                          And again, please cite a source that shows how often this occurs.

                          It happens a lot. (Please re-read the previous sentence)

                          Once more, source?

                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          And, most of the time the guys go around when they are too screwed up to fix things by the magical 500 ft mark.

                          And, on several occasions, (in severe VMC no less), I have seen planes tell the tower they can't make it because approach got them on final too close, and or two high and or too fast.
                          Where did you "see" this? Again, are you a controller? Are you monitoring ATC and watching approaches with binoculars? Where does this information come from?

                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Now, on a couple of occasions, some Southwest airlines guys were kind of high and fast and wound up scraping the paint job, damaging some fences and in one case killing a kid in a car.

                          Guess what,they should have gone around.

                          But they didn't.

                          It's overwhelmingly the pilots fault, but if ATC had set them up more 'gently'...no crashes.
                          Really...more gently? The professional pilots of commercial aircraft need to be hand held to get down properly on the runway?

                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Sorry that you have never heard of this sort of thing.
                          Why? There are plenty of things in aviation of which I am unaware. All I said was I never heard of an aircraft on an approach getting left at such a high altitude by ATC that they had a dangerous situation develop. I believe if that were the case on a "some regularity" basis, someone's ass in the tower would be in a sling.

                          You, as you seem to like to do with me, responded in an openly hostile and demeaning manner.

                          Please explain to all of us how you know all of these things you state to be true.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                            Please explain to all of us how you know all of these things you state to be true.
                            Sources???

                            -Flying magazine and AOPA pilot.

                            I cannot count the articles from piston pilots using the term "slam dunk" where they are often asked to descend suddenly and worry that it "shock cools" the engines.

                            -Hanging out at the airport (STL) with a VHF radio

                            I recall one day alone, two aircraft where two guys called the tower to say they were too high. STL was using paralell visual approaches on two very close runways...(to avoid confict, the aircraft join the final approach coarse at two different altitudes)

                            -Aircraft crash history.

                            The two southwest crashes I listed

                            -Aviation forums

                            Many instances of pilots telling of how they had to descend steeply (though usually meeting stabilied criteria)

                            No, I don't have a mathemeatical statistic for you, but it's anything but rare.

                            But you, have

                            Originally posted by Dumbstick
                            NEVER
                            heard of that sort of thing.

                            And the hostility is that after numerous times of trying to explain this, you continue to totally dismiss it. You really have a serious inability to listen and understand.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              Sources???

                              -Flying magazine and AOPA pilot.

                              I cannot count the articles from piston pilots using the term "slam dunk" where they are often asked to descend suddenly and worry that it "shock cools" the engines.

                              -Hanging out at the airport (STL) with a VHF radio

                              I recall one day alone, two aircraft where two guys called the tower to say they were too high. STL was using paralell visual approaches on two very close runways...(to avoid confict, the aircraft join the final approach coarse at two different altitudes)

                              -Aircraft crash history.

                              The two southwest crashes I listed

                              -Aviation forums

                              Many instances of pilots telling of how they had to descend steeply (though usually meeting stabilied criteria)

                              No, I don't have a mathemeatical statistic for you, but it's anything but rare.

                              But you, have



                              heard of that sort of thing.

                              And the hostility is that after numerous times of trying to explain this, you continue to totally dismiss it. You really have a serious inability to listen and understand.
                              And you have an incredibly over inflated ego. "mathemeatical" Isn't that special?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                                And you have an incredibly over inflated ego. "mathemeatical" Isn't that special?
                                Naw, I had just hoped you could comprehend the concept that ATC sometimes keeps people higher than they should and that it's been listed as a contributing factor on crashes before.

                                But since you've never heard of it then that's the way it is. Please carry on.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X