GPS Studio Services wrote:
Except that the Glide Slope was unavailable and they were aware of it.  It was down for maintenance.  They were flying a visual approach and had never tried to couple.  They had armed the auto-throttles but were not flying the glide slope.

MerrillMedia wrote:
Do we know that they knew the GS was out of service? I know that there was a NOTAM out on it, but it would be far from the first time that a crew didn't read or get all of the NOTAMS out on a particular airport.

I they coupled for a precision approach, they should have gotten a flag that the receiver wasn't getting the GS signal, but again, aviation accidents are full of examples where pilots didn't perceive something. The autopilot would maintain altitude and fly the localizer inbound and it would keep doing that, because the aircraft would never intercept a functioning GS.

Another possibility is that they knew the GS was out of service and they flew a coupled localizer approach. To me, the term "coupled" simply means that the autopilot is following output from a navigation device. Whether its a precision ILS, a non precision localizer, VOR, GPS, etc., doesn't matter. Without the GS, they would have descended at a rate appropriate to hit the crossing altiudes required at various points along the approach. If this is the case and the autothrottle function kept pulling more and more power off, the only conclusion that I can draw is massive pilot error. Whether on autopilot or not, they should have monitoring the various flight parameters, just as they would if hand flying the aircraft.

Lots of questions, unfortunately, very few answers at this point.

There has been no commentary of any kind to indicate that they tried to fly a coupled approach, only that they armed the auto-throttles and set a target speed of 137 knots.  The NTSB has been making public statements quite regularly, particularly from their interviews from the pilots and data from the black box. 

I agree with you as to your comments on the behavior of the autopilot, had they been trying to couple, but that would be a leap.  There is no evidence that they were attempting to fly anything other than a visual approach.

figurativearts wrote:
"The pilots involved in the Asiana Airlines flight 214 crash in San Francisco told federal investigators that they set the automatic throttle controls on the plane for a proper landing speed and then discovered to their surprise that at the last moment, the plane had slowed far beyond that setting."

GPS Studio Services wrote:
It is possible that they were not set properly, it is possible that they disengaged for some reason, it is also possible that there was some kind of failure.  None of that explains why nobody on the flight deck noticed the drop in airspeed.

MerrillMedia wrote:
Exactly.

But you and I agree, this really is the bottom line.

GK photo wrote:
it's hard to do, but everyone will have to wait until the ntsb makes it's final determination...which could take months.

Why?  Can't we conduct our own investigation here?

GPS Studio Services wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Except that the Glide Slope was unavailable and they were aware of it.  It was down for maintenance.  They were flying a visual approach and had never tried to couple.  They had armed the auto-throttles but were not flying the glide slope.

MerrillMedia wrote:
Do we know that they knew the GS was out of service? I know that there was a NOTAM out on it, but it would be far from the first time that a crew didn't read or get all of the NOTAMS out on a particular airport.

I they coupled for a precision approach, they should have gotten a flag that the receiver wasn't getting the GS signal, but again, aviation accidents are full of examples where pilots didn't perceive something. The autopilot would maintain altitude and fly the localizer inbound and it would keep doing that, because the aircraft would never intercept a functioning GS.

Another possibility is that they knew the GS was out of service and they flew a coupled localizer approach. To me, the term "coupled" simply means that the autopilot is following output from a navigation device. Whether its a precision ILS, a non precision localizer, VOR, GPS, etc., doesn't matter. Without the GS, they would have descended at a rate appropriate to hit the crossing altiudes required at various points along the approach. If this is the case and the autothrottle function kept pulling more and more power off, the only conclusion that I can draw is massive pilot error. Whether on autopilot or not, they should have monitoring the various flight parameters, just as they would if hand flying the aircraft.

Lots of questions, unfortunately, very few answers at this point.

There has been no commentary of any kind to indicate that they tried to fly a coupled approach, only that they armed the auto-throttles and set a target speed of 137 knots.  The NTSB has been making public statements quite regularly, particularly from their interviews from the pilots and data from the black box. 

I agree with you as to your comments on the behavior of the autopilot, had they been trying to couple, but that would be a leap.  There is no evidence that they were attempting to fly anything other than a visual approach.

figurativearts wrote:
"The pilots involved in the Asiana Airlines flight 214 crash in San Francisco told federal investigators that they set the automatic throttle controls on the plane for a proper landing speed and then discovered to their surprise that at the last moment, the plane had slowed far beyond that setting."

But you and I agree, this really is the bottom line.

Yeah, I think we do agree. I'm also interested in the fact that it is now known that the target speed was set with the airspeed bug. Actually, the more I think about it, it makes more sense than my original line of thought, because a rate of descent above what was set with the VVI bug, would cause the autopilot to pitch up, decreasing airspeed and resulting in increased thrust, not decreased thrust. Sometimes when you have been away from something for a long time, as I have been from flying, you do reason something out incompletely.

What I think is consistent in my thinking, however, is that the issue of over-reliance on automated systems may be becoming a factor that has to be looked at harder. I started flying when much of this equipment was simply not available and you either stayed ahead of the aircraft, or you died. Heck, I remember flying cancelled checks in a Cessna 310 with new radios with standby freqs, etc. and thinking I was flying a spaceship! In fact, I had a friend at the time flying seven-twos for American and my avionics were more advanced than his.

Compared to what has been in aircraft over the last 15 years or so, I was in the "dark ages" then!

GRMACK wrote:
More here (10-11 paragraphs down): http://apnews.excite.com/article/201307 … EDRG2.html

So the pilot was still "in training" on the 777, plus his first time landing at SFO and he just got the controls handed over to him 90 minutes prior to his first landing at SFO.  The other pilot was his flight instructor who then would - or should be - in command.

Sounds like the pilot is in full CYA mode along with the blinded by a bright light story too.  Having a CFI as a scapegoat is good too.

At least they did make some attempt at spinning up the engines for a go around, albeit too late, to get the thing airborne well enough to do so.

Still, what a mess.

A minor point, but the training pilot would be allowed to be an instructor because he is an ATP. The CFI aspect really doesn't come into play.

I would also like to know what experience the flying pilot had in the 747. Was he a first officer  .. an engineer? How many hours did he have in whatever role he played. Also, apparently his most recent experience as a PIC was in A320s, which are much smaller aircraft than the triple 7.

DwLPhoto wrote:
You guise should start a thread about how Jimmy Hoffa's body was hidden by the Illuminati with help from aliens.   There'd probably be less conjecture than this thread.

Here ya go!

Aliens stole my Datsun       (and that little dog too)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … t-dog.html

Union boss’ body put through wood chipper: report
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … -boss-fin/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … found.html

GK photo wrote:
it's hard to do, but everyone will have to wait until the ntsb makes it's final determination...which could take months.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Why?  Can't we conduct our own investigation here?

*snicker

GK photo wrote:
it's hard to do, but everyone will have to wait until the ntsb makes it's final determination...which could take months.

Click Hamilton wrote:
*snicker

it doesn't appear you even need to. the ntsb is already saying the pilots royally fucked up. the airline is lucky that they will only have to deal with two fatality lawsuits, and about 200 smaller injury settlements.

they're going to get off pretty cheap, considering. none of these pilots should ever be allowed to fly again. at least not in us airspace. this was just stupid. sorry, no other way of putting it.

where were sully and skiles when you needed them last saturday?

DwLPhoto wrote:
Do we see....do we finally see the problem with wild speculation (not to mention not reading the thread and repeating known info that was posted 12-24 hours earlier as a news flash or something you discovered or "know from years of experience") and not checking the facts in a rush to be the first with some info....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

KTVU. Oakland. Really happened. May offend easily offended.

.

Inexcusable and a perfect example of what is wrong with our newsmedia.  In their efforts to report all news and to report it as quickly as possible so they can champion themselves as being first, they fail to check the accuracy of the information.

On top of that as well, even if they had the correct names, is it news worthy? do we NEED to know their names so that people can get rattled up and start harassing them and their families?

DwLPhoto wrote:
Do we see....do we finally see the problem with wild speculation (not to mention not reading the thread and repeating known info that was posted 12-24 hours earlier as a news flash or something you discovered or "know from years of experience") and not checking the facts in a rush to be the first with some info....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

KTVU. Oakland. Really happened. May offend easily offended.

.

ron burgundy running that news room?

Select Models wrote:
I just thought it was kinda strange that two of the 4 pilots on this plane's names were:

1.  We Too Low
2.  Holy Fuck

Don't believe it?... watch this video!... ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo  (runtime 14 seconds)

dude, spoiler alert! you're not only late to the game, but you're ruining the jokes.

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:

Yeah... but you forget the CAPTAIN'S name...

Something Wrong!...

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Inexcusable and a perfect example of what is wrong with our newsmedia.  In their efforts to report all news and to report it as quickly as possible so they can champion themselves as being first, they fail to check the accuracy of the information.

On top of that as well, even if they had the correct names, is it news worthy? do we NEED to know their names so that people can get rattled up and start harassing them and their families?

You would think that somebody in the newsroom or the control room would have noticed, the guy on graphics for example. But I guess they were in such a hurry that it just went on air.

DwLPhoto wrote:
Do we see....do we finally see the problem with wild speculation (not to mention not reading the thread and repeating known info that was posted 12-24 hours earlier as a news flash or something you discovered or "know from years of experience") and not checking the facts in a rush to be the first with some info....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

KTVU. Oakland. Really happened. May offend easily offended.

.

If you don't like this thread then simply stop reading and posting in it. Problem solved.

sheesh

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:
Got it! Captain Something is wrong!!! The circle is now complete.

Most definitely... AND... according to the reporter is this video... the pilot's names were CONFIRMED by the NTSB... ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1JYHNX8pdo

1.  Something Wrong
2.  We Too Low
3.  Holy Fuck
4.  Bang Ding Ouch

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Most accurate re enactment of the crash so far:

The ghost plane is what it should have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … hoAfgYhhs0

.

Holy carp. That video is frightening. I figured the plane was way off from its intended path. It was only out by about perhaps 50 feet. Also, looks like the pilot pulled up too hard and nearly stalled, at least in that vid.

Michael Bots wrote:
Asiana Airlines to sue TV station over fake pilot names report
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/15/as … es-report/

"The National Transportation Safety Board has also apologized, saying a summer intern erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew."

I wonder what kind of a human being would conjure up sick jokes on a serious calamity they are supervising. Indeed, they may be not human at all...

The lawsuit should include the original source of the sick joke.

.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Most accurate re enactment of the crash so far:

The ghost plane is what it should have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … hoAfgYhhs0

.

That reenactment animation matches up really well with the videos of the crash. Watching it it's really easy to know that it could have been MUCH MUCH worse.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
I wonder what kind of a human being would conjure up sick jokes on a serious calamity they are supervising. Indeed, they may be not human at all...


.

Perhaps a frat boy working an unpaid internship?

Instinct Images wrote:
I was sad to read that the one girl that died was killed by a rescue vehicle. So sad to think that she survived the crash only to be killed by the rescuers. Very sad for the person driving the rescue vehicle too. From what I've read she was in an area covered in debris and the rescue vehicle simply couldn't see her.

It really is sad.  I am sure that it was nothing more than an accident.  One account said that when the body was found, it was covered in fire retardant foam.  She was probably totally invisible.  None the less, that is a great irony to survive the crash and then be killed by a rescue vehicle.

Instinct Images wrote:
I was sad to read that the one girl that died was killed by a rescue vehicle. So sad to think that she survived the crash only to be killed by the rescuers. Very sad for the person driving the rescue vehicle too. From what I've read she was in an area covered in debris and the rescue vehicle simply couldn't see her.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
It really is sad.  I am sure that it was nothing more than an accident.  One account said that when the body was found, it was covered in fire retardant foam.  She was probably totally invisible.  None the less, that is a great irony to survive the crash and then be killed by a rescue vehicle.

Making things even sadder is the fact that most likely someone will get sued about this...when it was most likely no one's fault.  If she was indeed covered in foam, there was very likely really NOTHING that could have been done to prevent it (practically speaking).