de0rbit wrote:
'Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/ … 1620130708

Great idea. Take a pilot training for that plane and have him land at an airport with a disabled landing aid.

de0rbit wrote:
'Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/ … 1620130708

That is all good but the guy still had almost 10,000 hours.  He was type rated in a 747.   He had three other pilots with him and a type rated co-pilot in the right seat.

It is possible that the plane got away from him because he was inexperienced, but what they are describing isn't unusual at all.  You would think that a pilot with 10,000 hours would know when he was low on approach.

de0rbit wrote:
'Asiana says pilot of crashed plane was in training'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/ … 1620130708

Andialu wrote:
Great idea. Take a pilot training for that plane and have him land at an airport with a disabled landing aid.

Don't fixate on the glideslope.  On a clear day, it is quite likely they wouldn't have been using it even if it was on.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:
If you look at the photo above, the pilot is supposed to aim for the two heavy, vertical stripes located 1,000 feet down runway from the 28L numbers.

Actually, "yes."  Those marks are put on the runway as the "aim point."  They are required at all fields where medium and heavy jets land.  Where the wheels touchdown are irrelevant.  The pilot isn't supposed to aim for the numbers (although we do it all the time in light planes), they aim for the bars, which gives them a margin of safety.

BTW, if you look at the runway photos, you will notice that they blacked out the old aim point and moved it further down the field.  That was done because they wanted to move the aim point further from the end of the runway.  That is also the point where the glideslope is calibrated to.

I am not sure why you keep focusing on the glideslope.  On a totally clear day, it is very likely they wouldn't have been flying an ILS approach anyhow.  It is no major challenge for a pilot to land any plane in clear conditions.  Somehow this guy just got behind the curve.

Please learn to read all threads..it will be extremely helpful to you..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18357761

GRMACK wrote:
Still, cannot figure out as to why the top of the cabin seems burned through in three places.  Is oxygen stored up there and maybe part of the incendiary if some electrical short ignited the oxygen?  The masks were shown down inside the plane so it must have been flowing.

I'm not sure where those flames originated. Maybe it was the oxygen delivery system. Or, maybe it was the overhead bins catching fire? Just guessing.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Actually, "yes."  Those marks are put on the runway as the "aim point."  They are required at all fields where medium and heavy jets land.  Where the wheels touchdown are irrelevant.  The pilot isn't supposed to aim for the numbers (although we do it all the time in light planes), they aim for the bars, which gives them a margin of safety.

BTW, if you look at the runway photos, you will notice that they blacked out the old aim point and moved it further down the field.  That was done because they wanted to move the aim point further from the end of the runway.  That is also the point where the glideslope is calibrated to.

I am not sure why you keep focusing on the glideslope.  On a totally clear day, it is very likely they wouldn't have been flying an ILS approach anyhow.  It is no major challenge for a pilot to land any plane in clear conditions.  Somehow this guy just got behind the curve.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:
Please learn to read all threads..it will be extremely helpful to you..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18357761

Or pay attention to the comment I was making originally since it wasn't addressed to something you had said.  In the context of what I had been saying previously, I was pointing out how the runway was marked to indicate to pilots where the proper "aim point" is.  My comments had nothing to do with where the other planes were actually touching down, which will vary. 

The comment was quite correct.  It just wasn't addressing something you had said.

Dream-foto wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … -ntsb-says

Note that the autopilot was disconnected 82 seconds before impact. I'll go back to my theory that they were flying a coupled approach with an inop glideslope.

Dream-foto wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … -ntsb-says

MerrillMedia wrote:
Note that the autopilot was disconnected 82 seconds before impact. I'll go back to my theory that they were flying a coupled approach with an inop glideslope.

You can't fly a coupled approach with an inoperative glideslope.  The way the approach works is that you fly straight and level until you intercept the glide slope (normally miles from the runway) and then upon interception, the auto-pilot commands a decent.  If there is no glideslope, there is nothing to couple.

What they could have done was to fly a GPS approach with vertical guidance.  That, however, would have had much higher minimums.  It is not a precision approach.  Disconnecting the autopilot 82 seconds before touchdown would be consistent with a hand flown, visual approach.  There would be nothing unusual about that.

I just think that the pilot got behind the airplane, nothing more, nothing less.  An approach speed of 103 knots is just unimaginable.  That is just a total lack of basic airspeed control.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Dream-foto wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 … -ntsb-says

You can't fly a coupled approach with an inoperative glideslope.  The way the approach works is that you fly straight and level until you intercept the glide slope (normally miles from the runway) and then upon interception, the auto-pilot commands a decent.  If there is no glideslope, there is nothing to couple.

What they could have done was to fly a GPS approach with vertical guidance.  That, however, would have had much higher minimums.  It is not a precision approach.  Disconnecting the autopilot 82 seconds before touchdown would be consistent with a hand flown, visual approach.  There would be nothing unusual about that.

I just think that the pilot got behind the airplane, nothing more, nothing less.  An approach speed of 103 knots is just unimaginable.  That is just a total lack of basic airspeed control.

GPS, Help me out here since I'm not a pilot, but doesn't the copilot watch and call out the air speed while on landing approach?

I guess it will all be revealed when they release the transcript of the voice recorder.

MerrillMedia wrote:
As some have mentioned, there is a lighting system used at such airports that gives glideslope information. On a clear day, you can see them a long way from the runway. I haven't been to SFO in a long time, so I don't know if they have a "VASI" sytem, a "PAPI" system or something else, but they all do basically the same thing - tell you if you are above, on or below the glidepath.

Isn't VASI obsolete?

Click Hamilton wrote:
Who was flying the plane?

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'll take "pilots" for 500, bob.

It's not looking too good for the pilot's resume.

Relatively new to flying the 777, on-the-job training with a full load of passengers ...

Maybe the bottom of the plane was a little lower then he expected as he tried to grease the numbers with a perfect, slow and gentle landing on a beautiful day to show off his piloting skills as Captain of a new category of plane (to him).

Oops. Not exactly the kind of landing we want in our log books.

---

Until the definitive answers come out, it could still be a lot of other things.

Wait and see. The investigation is not yet complete.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Dream-foto wrote:
GPS, Help me out here since I'm not a pilot, but doesn't the copilot watch and call out the air speed while on landing approach?

I guess it will all be revealed when they release the transcript of the voice recorder.

Yes, and that makes this whole thing even stranger.  The pilot of this flight was on the last of ten mentored rides.  He had 10,000 hours including time in heavy jets, such as the 747.    In order to transition into another type, he has to be first, fully trained in the simulator and then do ten flights with a check pilot overseeing his actions.

It totally amazes me that absolutely nobody on the flight deck caught the speed issue or angle of decent.  I am hoping that something else comes up to shed more light, such as a mechanical issue, but right now, it looks like they were just asleep at the stick.

If there had been a serious crisis leading up to the crash, there should have been all kinds of chatter and reactions. Instead it seems like they just calmly flew the plane into the ground and then asked for a "go-around" when it was already too late.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Isn't VASI obsolete?

Why, it is a visual aid.  Not all planes fly IFR, and beyond that, it works well in visual conditions.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Maybe the bottom of the plane was a little lower then he expected as he tried to grease the numbers with a perfect, slow and gentle landing on a beautiful day to show off his piloting skills as Captain of a new category of plane (to him).

Since he was use to flying the 747 which has a high cockpit, it should be the other way around. Either way, I would have expected that he would have practiced SFO in the simulator before the trip.

The NTSC usually does a very thorough job, however it will take months before we get the report.

I love watching the TV show "Air Crash Investigations" (also called "Air Disasters" and "Mayday" depending on which country it's aired.  If you haven't ever watched these, there many posted for free on YouTube and here: http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/we … sode-guide

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Why, it is a visual aid.  Not all planes fly IFR, and beyond that, it works well in visual conditions.

I liked VASI's in the 80's and 90's. I no longer fly, so I don't know what equipment is common now. My question was if they still exist, or if they have been replaced with PAPI's or something else?

Click Hamilton wrote:

I liked VASI's in the 80's and 90's. I no longer fly, so I don't know what equipment is common now. My question was if they still exist, or if they have been replaced with PAPI's or something else?

They still exist. There are so many things that are flat out wrong in this thread I'd pull my hair out if I still had any. I'm a real heavy pilot and did not just sleep at a Holiday Inn express last might. 20,000+ hours if it matters...

Kens Lens wrote:
There are so many things that are flat out wrong in this thread I'd pull my hair out if I still had any. I'm a real heavy pilot and did not just sleep at a Holiday Inn express last might. 20,000+ hours if it matters...

I often wonder if the press does more harm than good when they report things they really don't know.  I see the same things in computers, photography and a lot more.  I suspect it to be true in most things.  The misreporting fuels the nonsense. 

To me, this is a simple accident.  The pilot was flying low and slow.  It wasn't weather related.  It wasn't about the glideslope being out.  According to the airline, there were no engine problems.

The question is, why did an ATP with 10,000 hours, including a type rating in a 747 allow the plane to get low and slow?  To be honest, I am baffled by it.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I often wonder if the press does more harm than good when they report things they really don't know.  I see the same things in computers, photography and a lot more.  I suspect it to be true in most things.  The misreporting fuels the nonsense. 

To me, this is a simple accident.  The pilot was flying low and slow.  It wasn't weather related.  It wasn't about the glideslope being out.  According to the airline, there were no engine problems.

The question is, why did an ATP with 10,000 hours, including a type rating in a 747 allow the plane to get low and slow?  To be honest, I am baffled by it.

If you could have been on my jump seat  yesterday with not onlly the sun in our eyes but the biinding glare off of the bay in our eyes you could see how important the gs is. We almost always have one. I have thoughts on a multitude of factors that were likely factors in the chain of events that led up to the accident, but typing them on a smart phone is not on my layover to do list. Better things to do in New York.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Why, it is a visual aid.  Not all planes fly IFR, and beyond that, it works well in visual conditions.

Click Hamilton wrote:
I liked VASI's in the 80's and 90's. I no longer fly, so I don't know what equipment is common now. My question was if they still exist, or if they have been replaced with PAPI's or something else?

They are disappearing but they have not all been replaced.  I am not sure if there is a VASI or a PAPI on the runway in question, but they serve largely the same purpose.  The difference, of course, is that the PAPI is accurate to a lower altitude.

Kens Lens wrote:
There are so many things that are flat out wrong in this thread I'd pull my hair out if I still had any. I'm a real heavy pilot and did not just sleep at a Holiday Inn express last might. 20,000+ hours if it matters...

What do you think was the cause of this bad landing?

Kens Lens wrote:
There are so many things that are flat out wrong in this thread I'd pull my hair out if I still had any. I'm a real heavy pilot and did not just sleep at a Holiday Inn express last might. 20,000+ hours if it matters...

Click Hamilton wrote:
What do you think was the cause of this bad landing?

That is a good question.  I too am curious what he thinks was the cause. We won't see the report for six months to a year.  I'd love to hear another opinion.  This one is really a mystery to me.

Police officers threw utility knives up to crew members inside the burning wreckage of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 so they could cut away passengers’ seat belts.

I'm surprised that a belt-cutter isn't standard equipment aboard any passenger aircraft. It's not like they're a "real knife."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ju … ines-crash

A pilot used a cockpit "crash axe" to deflate an evacuation slide that had inflated inwards, pinning a colleague.

On the other hand, a real knife might have been a whole lot faster and safer than a crash axe for deflating a slide...

Kens Lens wrote:

They still exist. There are so many things that are flat out wrong in this thread I'd pull my hair out if I still had any. I'm a real heavy pilot and did not just sleep at a Holiday Inn express last might. 20,000+ hours if it matters...

Heavy pilot?

Does that mean a commercial airline pilot?

Chicchowmein wrote:
Heavy pilot?

Does that mean a commercial airline pilot?

No. It specifically comes from radio communications with Air Traffic Control and Ground Control for managing traffic.

"Heavy" (noun) means an aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or more. This radio communications definition is precise, for obvious reasons. "Heavy" refers to the aircraft, not the person.

For baby pilots like me, who fly dinky little planes for picnics, my first thought when listening to radio communications with a "Heavy" would be the amount of air they displace, wake turbulence, wing tip vortex, etc., and to be alert. More weight = more lift = more potential wake turbulence.

As the PIC, this would affect my decision for spacing, glide path and what point to land on the runway if I was next in line for landing. Wake turbulence is invisible and can knock a small plane into a crash landing. It rolls backwards, downwards and outwards from the wings. It can roll around on the ground for awhile before it dissipates. Personally I will always aim for a touchdown point in front of where a large plane in front of me touches down. That keeps me above and in front of potential wake turbulence.

ATC uses these weight designations to space traffic, among other things.

---

I assume a "heavy pilot" would mean a person who flies that size of aircraft, but in what capacity I don't know. A pilot of a Heavy indicates a high level of experience and sophisticated type ratings. Could be long hours in military aircraft as well. 

"Heavy" of "heavy pilot" would become the adjective describing the weight category of aircraft the pilot flies. If it's not radio communications, the term could become more conversational and less specific.

I would imagine a flight attendant could say "I fly heavies" if that's the kind of time they log. Or maybe a passenger, if that's their preference.

Click Hamilton wrote:
I wonder if there are cultural or political implications that should be examined and taken into account?

That's exactly the topic of this story on NBCnews.com:

The Korean culture has two features—respect for seniority and age, and quite an authoritarian style," said Thomas Kochan, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "You put those two together, and you may get more one-way communication—and not a lot of it upward."

In the Korean language, you speak to superiors and elders in an honorific form that requires more words and can be more oblique than in English, for example. It's Less, "Yo! You want water?"; and more, "It's a warm day for a nice refreshment, no?" This may sound trivial. But put this in the context of a cockpit, where seconds and decision-making are crucial, and communication and culture can matter.


http://www.nbcnews.com/business/korean- … 6C10578732

The Chinese culture has the idea of "saving face" which means that you don't say something to a person that might embarrass them. So instead of a junior member of the flight team to say "We're too low!" they might say "Captain would you like to gain altitude?" or "Captain would you like me to increase engine thrust?". The article also talks about how many Korean pilots have come up through the military and that also contributes to the strict hierarchy and a culture of not questioning superiors.

It certainly would help explain why no one in the cabin reacted more quickly and decisively to the crisis.

Click Hamilton wrote:
No. It specifically comes from radio communications with Air Traffic Control and Ground Control for managing traffic.

"Heavy" (noun) means an aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or more. This radio communications definition is precise, for obvious reasons. "Heavy" refers to the aircraft, not the person.

For baby pilots like me, who fly dinky little planes for picnics, my first thought when listening to radio communications with a "Heavy" would be the amount of air they displace, wake turbulence, wing tip vortex, etc., and to be alert. More weight = more lift = more potential wake turbulence.

As the PIC, this would affect my decision for spacing, glide path and what point to land on the runway if I was next in line for landing. Wake turbulence is invisible and can knock a small plane into a crash landing. It rolls backwards, downwards and outwards from the wings. It can roll around on the ground for awhile before it dissipates. Personally I will always aim for a touchdown point in front of where a large plane in front of me touches down. That keeps me above and in front of potential wake turbulence.

ATC uses these weight designations to space traffic, among other things.

---

I assume a "heavy pilot" would mean a person who flies that size of aircraft, but in what capacity I don't know. A pilot of a Heavy indicates a high level of experience and sophisticated type ratings. Could be long hours in military aircraft as well. 

"Heavy" of "heavy pilot" would become the adjective describing the weight category of aircraft the pilot flies. If it's not radio communications, the term could become more conversational and less specific.

I would imagine a flight attendant could say "I fly heavies" if that's the kind of time they log. Or maybe a passenger, if that's their preference.

I was asking because my father is a flew jets in the military ( fighter pilot) and was a commercial airline pilot. He flew for Pan Am and then made the move about two days before they went belly up to another airline.

Whenever there is a airplane crash or any kind of disaster people call him and ask him his opinion. I have not asked him about his yet.

That said he is very particular about what airlines he flies.

*That one plane where the pilot put the plane down in the Hudson river -- I knew right away that was a pilot with military training.

Click Hamilton wrote:
What's that?

10 minutes before they land, I certainly hope they were flying.

I don't understand why they are spreading this out over 5 days?

And why are they measuring ground speed rather than airspeed? Airspeed is what keeps a plane in the air, or what is dissipated so a plane can land.

Does this graph represent the last 5 landings of this plane at SFO?

The last 5 days of how the B777 landed. The red one was it's last.

Note that in the final 1 minute, data for all 4 previous approaches were consistent, in any airport. The red line shows evidence of erratic behaviour perhaps from inexperience.

.

GK photo wrote:
on a pure anecdotal level, my gf's brother is a pilot. he flies the single aisle sized jets, not jumbo jets (yet). i have known him for decades, and wouldn't trust him to drive me to the corner store, let alone fly me cross country.

he didn't come up through the military. he got certified going to samoa. personally, if i walked onto a plane and saw he was going to pilot it, i'd turn around and get off. i'm serious. and he's a nice guy, too. i just wouldn't trust him with my life. 

there is a heavy sense of responsibility associated with flying people around commercially. if this crash turns out to have been caused by some retarded cultural bs, then eff it. the faa should be aware of any such nonsense, and should eradicate it.

all of this is putting the cart before the horse, but i certainly hope the reason for the accident would be more mechanical failure than brain failure.

Cultural BS? What do you mean?

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
The chart displays irrefutable data that something was wrong.

The aircraft literally plunged from a normal level flight approach.



.

Here's the link your chart came from:
http://au.businessinsider.com/chart-why … eed-2013-7

The ability of a plane to fly is measured by airspeed, not ground speed. The speed and energy of flying has to be dissipated so a plane can land.

The article tries to compare the "target speed" prior to landing, and the speed at the time of impact, which makes this graph entirely refutable.

They report this: "The target speed for the Boeing 777 — the speed at which it should have been flying moments before landing — was 137 knots (158 mph). In a press conference, NTSB Chairman Debbie Hersman said that at the moment of impact, the jet’s speed was just 106 knots (122 mph)."

How long is "moments before landing"?

It might have been a good landing if the runway extended another 100 feet into the bay. It looks like he missed his mark and landed short. From reports, it looks like he may have "goosed it to get over the fence" .. so to speak. It may or may not have been a full scale attempt to go around.

It would be interesting to see if the green lines of the other alleged 214 flights slowed down in the same way as they touched the wheels to the ground, which seems like it should be to the right of where the graph ended.

An ideal landing is touching the wheels to the ground at stall speed with the final rotation to exhaust the last of the energy and stall the plane at the end of the descent as the wheels touch the ground and take over. Faster than that and you are still flying.