-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Boeing 777 down...
- Thread starter ThinkingManNeil
- Start date
aircav1970
SOH-CM-2013
Eye witnesses have reported that the bird was "low and the AOA was extremely nose high". Maybe the pilot tried to go around but over-corrected and stalled right at the threshold.....be interested in what the data recorder shows. All in all it could have been so much worse. The flight crew did a wonderful job evacuating the plane.
GypsyBaron
Charter Member
Landings on 28L and 28R are long approaches over the Bay. The only
things higher than the water are the Dunbarton and San Mateo Bridges,
and these are far down the Bay from the approach end of the runways.
You are over water until you cross the rocks at the end of those runways.
I don't recall ever landing on 01R or 01L, which WOULD be coming in
over the mountains to the west. Most all flights use 28 L/R for
takeoffs and landings and 01 L/R for takeoffs of the A320/B737 types and regional jets.
Paul
ThinkingManNeil
Charter Member
So witnesses are saying the angle of attack prior to touchdown was much higher than normal, we've got what looks like the equivalent to a ramp strike on a carrier with debris scattered along the runway from the threshold, landing gear and engines torn off along with the entire tail from the aft passenger cabin pressure bulkhead back which attests to considerable speed and force of impact, no distress calls from the cockpit crew that we know of. I dunno, and this is certainly no final judgement of course, but it sounds like he came in too steep, got below the glideslope, tried to flare while behind the power curve, and pancaked...hard.
I wonder if the flight data recorders will show the engines spooling up to emergency power prior to impact, or if any ground witnesses heard her trying to go to power?
N.
I wonder if the flight data recorders will show the engines spooling up to emergency power prior to impact, or if any ground witnesses heard her trying to go to power?
N.
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
Looks like we were blessed here & a big bullet was dodged...
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
Two people are now reported dead and around 140 injured. While it certainly could have been much worse the fact remains it is a high price to pay for what appears like a visual approach flown well below normal glideslope. Passenger statements have been the best initial indications. In guessing, it seems like the pilot did not initiate a go-around but rather tried to salvage the approach by adding just enough power to remain on final but recover from being too low.
It is interesting to me to see news reports link the fact that, in visual conditions, the airport took the glideslope offline for maintenance. As a pilot, it is insulting to see the media make such flawed connections. A pilot ought to be able to fly a visual approach, and certainly also an instrument approach with the glideslope out of service. The time to perform maintenance is precisely when the weather is quality visual conditions. It's a typical specious link by the media. Likewise typical of the media, the reporter of the AP story I just read failed to note the presence of visual approach indicators that give the pilot excellent feedback on his height relative normal glideslope. At an airport like KSFO, there's really not much excuse to fail to note you are well below glideslope.
The other noteworthy fact is that at least for now the spokespeople for the airline have said they doubt there was any mechanical issue with the crash. That's a pretty powerful initial clue that the airline thinks it's pure pilot error. The passengers have reported that they did not hear a substantial increase in engine power until after the hard initial contact with the ground apparently short of the normal touchdown zone of the runway.
To my read, the initial indications are two pilots did a poor job of evaluating their visual glideslope and power status and delayed too long making the go-around call. Tower recordings were released to the media last night and all the media did was release the portions recorded immediately after the crash. So, that tells me there was nothing said by the crew prior to the impact that would have indicated a problem. The other thing was video recorded overhead immediately showing the verticle stabilizer lying separated from the fuselage and on its side without any burn marks, along with a debris field from the sea wall down the runway. So, while you can never be entirely sure until the final report is published, it has all the initial signs of pilot error.
Ken
It is interesting to me to see news reports link the fact that, in visual conditions, the airport took the glideslope offline for maintenance. As a pilot, it is insulting to see the media make such flawed connections. A pilot ought to be able to fly a visual approach, and certainly also an instrument approach with the glideslope out of service. The time to perform maintenance is precisely when the weather is quality visual conditions. It's a typical specious link by the media. Likewise typical of the media, the reporter of the AP story I just read failed to note the presence of visual approach indicators that give the pilot excellent feedback on his height relative normal glideslope. At an airport like KSFO, there's really not much excuse to fail to note you are well below glideslope.
The other noteworthy fact is that at least for now the spokespeople for the airline have said they doubt there was any mechanical issue with the crash. That's a pretty powerful initial clue that the airline thinks it's pure pilot error. The passengers have reported that they did not hear a substantial increase in engine power until after the hard initial contact with the ground apparently short of the normal touchdown zone of the runway.
To my read, the initial indications are two pilots did a poor job of evaluating their visual glideslope and power status and delayed too long making the go-around call. Tower recordings were released to the media last night and all the media did was release the portions recorded immediately after the crash. So, that tells me there was nothing said by the crew prior to the impact that would have indicated a problem. The other thing was video recorded overhead immediately showing the verticle stabilizer lying separated from the fuselage and on its side without any burn marks, along with a debris field from the sea wall down the runway. So, while you can never be entirely sure until the final report is published, it has all the initial signs of pilot error.
Ken
Looks like the airline decided to throw their flight crews under the bus, releasing a statement already that there was no engine problems with the plane, before any investigation has even started. That was a bit odd, no? Looks like a classic "ramp strike" to me, but how could that happen, in clear weather? Between the voice and data recorders, we'll soon learn exactly what happened. Very sad for the two fatalities and their families.
Ken, I had a slightly different take on this. It seemed to me that the "news readers" were asking their "expert guests", usually pilots, if the down ILS could have contributed in some way. The answer was always "no". They did ask several times, but at least they asked, and, at least to me, didn't conclude on their own, without knowledge. Of course, I didn't see every news story on it...
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
Agree that it is very unusual for an airline to already publicly rule out potential causes within 24 hours of a mishap. But, I would have to believe they did that only after making interviews with the flight crew who must have told them there were no such issues.
As far as how could a multi-thousand hour flight crew make such a mistake in good VMC conditions, well to answer that would require me to go too far in asserting fault. I'll wait until after the NTSB report comes out. Let's just say that I teach CRM and I expect this mishap may end up becoming another textbook example of CRM.
Ken
StormILM
Charter Member
I'm treating the calls of pilot error with a good bit of skepticism. Yes, it is possible but the 777's automation and safety systems will quickly warn the crew if they are out of parameters even on a hand flown(manual yoke & throttle) approach. I saw the FAA's graph of the 777's glideslope and it was pretty much normal until the final 10-12 seconds. I'm still leaning towards this being another FOHE related issue. I read where Boeing and all three engine manufacturers for the 777 are checking over issues revolving around this and other potentially dangerous issues with the 777's fuel systems/pumps. 90% of the time 777 crews fly the approach and landing using the FADEC(in both APP and MC) and as such major deviations in the glideslope are unlikely absent meteorological conditions that would cause such. But if there was an issue with engine power not responding via the FADEC or manual movement of the TL's or a decrease in rpm/thrust due to an FOHE ice blockage, then yes they could have suffered a substantial increase in sink rate at short final that was unrecoverable. The pilot knew something was wrong and tried to dampen the sink rate by pulling the nose up(some report a nearly 45 degree angle prior to impact). If this was a case of pilot error on the glideslope/excessive sink rate, again, the annunciator warnings would have been raising hell and the pilots would most likely have had time to react. They were at minimal fuel and the 777 has more than enough power(plus rapid throttle/engine response) to push it's way out of excessive sink rate(I have witnessed this with 777 crews training to fly out of windshear at very excessive sink rates at approach and short final). The other things to mention here. There was no go around call by the Captain, the ATC's didn't note that the 777 was abnormally below GS. Both the ATC and 777 crew seemed surprised post impact in their reactions audio recordings). So far as the engines spooling up post impact, I don't think that was commanded but rather throttle servo linkages/fuel pumps damaged by the impact. I witnessed a twin engine turboprop fatally crash on landing over 20 years ago and every one of us who saw it heard the PT6's sound like they spooled to full power but post accident investigation indicated the throttle levers were at idle at impact.
Here's a good video on the FOHE issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uO_wniPd6U
Maybe this could be the cause or maybe not. The crew made it as did a majority of the aircraft and black boxes so the cause will be sorted in due time.
Here's a good video on the FOHE issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uO_wniPd6U
Maybe this could be the cause or maybe not. The crew made it as did a majority of the aircraft and black boxes so the cause will be sorted in due time.
CNN just played video of the pertinent part of the approach. It's amazing. The ship is dragging its tail across the water for hundreds of feet before impacting the seawall (Jesus...) I can understand why people said it "cartwheeled", because it almost did. It appears to have spun around more than 360 degrees before coming to rest, much of that time in the air and at a crazy attitude.
CWOJackson
Charter Member
They have it up on their website now; approach, strike and burn: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/07/vo-plane-sf-plane-crash-on-cam.courtesy-fred-hayes.html
CWOJackson
Charter Member
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pilots of Asiana Flight 214 were flying too slowly as they approached San Francisco airport, triggering a warning that the jetliner could stall, and then tried to abort the landing seconds before crashing, according to federal safety officials.
The Boeing 777 was traveling at speeds well below the target landing speed of 137 knots per hour, or 157 mph, said National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman at a briefing Sunday on the crash.
"We're not talking about a few knots," she said.
Hersman said the aircraft's stick shaker - a piece of safety equipment that warns pilots of an impending stall - went off moments before the crash. The normal response to a stall warning is to increase speed to recover control.
There was an increase several seconds before the crash, she said, basing her comments on an evaluation of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders that contain hundreds of different types of information on what happened to the plane.
And at 1.5 seconds before impact, there was a call for an aborted landing, she said. The crash at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday killed two 16-year-old girls from China and injured dozens of others.
The new details helped shed light on the final moments of the airliner as the crew tried desperately to climb back into the sky, and confirmed what survivors and other witnesses said they saw: a slow-moving airliner.
Pilots normally try to land at the target speed, in this case 137 knots, plus an additional five more knots, said Bob Coffman, an American Airlines captain who has flown 777s. He said the briefing raises an important question: "Why was the plane going so slow?"
The plane's Pratt & Whitney engines were on idle, Hersman said. The normal procedure in the Boeing 777, a wide-body jet, would be to use the autopilot and the throttle to provide power to the engine all the way through to landing, Coffman said.
There was no indication in the discussions between the pilots and the air traffic controllers that there were problems with the aircraft.
More at: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-07-18-35-59
The Boeing 777 was traveling at speeds well below the target landing speed of 137 knots per hour, or 157 mph, said National Transportation Safety Board chief Deborah Hersman at a briefing Sunday on the crash.
"We're not talking about a few knots," she said.
Hersman said the aircraft's stick shaker - a piece of safety equipment that warns pilots of an impending stall - went off moments before the crash. The normal response to a stall warning is to increase speed to recover control.
There was an increase several seconds before the crash, she said, basing her comments on an evaluation of the cockpit voice and flight data recorders that contain hundreds of different types of information on what happened to the plane.
And at 1.5 seconds before impact, there was a call for an aborted landing, she said. The crash at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday killed two 16-year-old girls from China and injured dozens of others.
The new details helped shed light on the final moments of the airliner as the crew tried desperately to climb back into the sky, and confirmed what survivors and other witnesses said they saw: a slow-moving airliner.
Pilots normally try to land at the target speed, in this case 137 knots, plus an additional five more knots, said Bob Coffman, an American Airlines captain who has flown 777s. He said the briefing raises an important question: "Why was the plane going so slow?"
The plane's Pratt & Whitney engines were on idle, Hersman said. The normal procedure in the Boeing 777, a wide-body jet, would be to use the autopilot and the throttle to provide power to the engine all the way through to landing, Coffman said.
There was no indication in the discussions between the pilots and the air traffic controllers that there were problems with the aircraft.
More at: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-07-18-35-59
StormILM
Charter Member
Here's a video of a 777 sim run in simulated wind shear:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPGTojLBfvU
Right at 0:40 in the video you can hear the stick shaker going off yet the power available(@TOGA) allowed a positive rate of climb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPGTojLBfvU
Right at 0:40 in the video you can hear the stick shaker going off yet the power available(@TOGA) allowed a positive rate of climb.
CWOJackson
Charter Member
In this case there was no power available. They were reporting no problems, they were well below the proper landing speed, the engines were at idle and the stick shaker activated moments before the crash and they signaled a go around 1.5 seconds before the crash.