[Real Aviation] A Real B-777 has crashed in San Francisco KSFO airport. Asiana Airlines apparently. Thanks to Anonymizer for the tip. Most PAX rescued. The aicraft / hard landing.
No it was IFR but on a visual approach (there is a difference). Also currently at SFO there are no ILS approaches or VASIS available for 28L and 28R due to works.
Okay. I heard the letters VFR in the press conference. But perhaps I misunderstood. But then again, they had the numbers wrong, and called it a seven seventy seven so...
you guys shouldn't speculate on that....things are usually not what they seem to be in aviation...What you do not see is actually in most cases the cause of the accident: - Colgan crash: ice on the wing... - Concorde crash: metal piece on the rwy... - Swissair crash: the heat.... and so on....
Im not trying to start a war with you Sir...pointless. Just sayin that we should refrain from speculating in the few hours following a crash, nothing more nothing less Sir. Of course we are all free human beings, but common sense should lead us to act in a certain way. Have a good night guys.
Plus Colgan was not caused by ice on the wing at all but rather by pilot induced stall that was not ice related and further subsequent improper control inputs by the pilot. So nice try, but no.
Commercial passenger flights are required to operate under ifr. It was on a visual approach. Pilot was below glideslope and impacted tail short of the runway. Bay area pilot here.
There's no glideslope or PAPI/VASI available so it's eyeballs out the window (CAVOK blue sky day) and a bit of mental guesswork to judge vertical profile.
If you want to find a more informative discussion head to PPRuNe.
BTW I have seen commercial RPT flights flown VFR low-level during exceptional events, like that Icelandic volcano thing a few years ago. It's quite funny (and unsettling) to see 737s and Airbuses barreling around at 3000ft and scud-running under VFR.
Pilot error or not, tribute should be payed to Boeing engineers who put together such a robust plane. That's the second time T7 is hitting the ground in such way and (almost) everybody walks away. If it was different jet (e.g. MD-11) I guess it would have been a horrible disaster..
The PAPI was operational. It was notamed inop after the accident because it was destroyed in the crash. Besides that weather was totally clear and calm winds, no pilot should have even needed PAPI or its to tell him where he was on the glideslope.
I did really the ntsb report and you have no idea what you are talking about. On February 2, 2010, the NTSB adopted its final report into the accident. This was the first time in 15 years that a report had been adopted by the NTSB in less than a year from the date of the accident. It concluded that the cause of the accident was pilot error.
The captain failed to react in the proper manner, by decreasing the angle-of-attack, when the stick shaker activated.
The stick shaker activated because the captain has selected a switch to increase vref speeds due to icing conditions, but in fact at the time of stick shaker activation the aircraft was still 10 to 20 knots away from a stall. Normal recovery would have been to simply increase power and slightly nose down to recover airspeed and avert a stall.
Instead, following the activation of both the stick shaker and the stick pusher, he countermanded by pulling back on the stick, which greatly exacerbated the situation. "...his improper flight control inputs were inconsistent with his training and were instead consistent with startle and confusion."
The NTSB was unable to determine why the first officer retracted the flaps and also suggested that the landing gear should be retracted. Her actions were also inconsistent with company stall recovery procedures and training. The actions of both pilots led to the aircraft entering an accelerated stall.
I believe we have to put in a request to Google for that. But then again that's like banning him. I have another thought to deal with him though. We can divert comments from his IP to fgo directly to spam. So for future refrence we will have to moderate his comments along with the trash.
This is completely ridiculous, how is this p3 guy even saying all this sh*t? 99% of the time, he had nothing postitive to contribute. Smart move DAndre.
" ...I dont care what the report said, I staunchly believe the BA777 was pilot error"
But you are aware that this is a flight simulation blog and people here are all "officially youtube proofed aviation experts(some maybe Angle of Attack proofed".
It is all about matematical probabilty and the most likely answer was ice in the oil-flow heat exchangers of the Trent 800. RR redesigned it and replaced all of them. Looks more like a design issue of the engine manufacturer rather than an 777 issue.
Sometimes we hit the button too fast when comments are lined up. The moderation adds to the workload. Wish we didn't have to do it a all but you clearly see what happens...
And probably most of those 43 hours is spend in cruise flight. I think they should start only taking into account takeoffs and landings when calculating hours. Any experienced simmer could handle the cruise workload anyway. I had a doubt about the landing speed when I saw the data on FlightAware. Also it showed the aircraft airborne after having touched down as seen in the video. It must have been a terrifying experience. You can only guess the shock it caused to the pilots when you hear the ATC recordings. I kinda feel sad for them but these are the risks for the job. In any case it seems they were too low and too slow. Probably stalled just before touched down but hopefully they were already too close to the ground. My condolences to the families.
The video is certainly an eye-opener - that T7 is truly a sturdy aircraft!
As regards the 43 hours Issa's point is a little circular - The only way to increase experience of take offs and landings is to practice them and it seems that is what this FO was doing - all fine so far. The problem would appear to be that his inexperience got him into difficulties that the Captain (or those in the jumpseats) should have picked up on.
As with any accident, this is only one factor of many - including things such as inop ILS, no PAPI and landing over water with a short threshold.
Obviously this comment is pure speculation and I am an armchair judge with limited knowledge and no real life experience so please accept it in that fashion.
@Dave W, there was a PAPI so what exactly are you talking about? Besides, neither an ILS glideslope nor a PAPI (although there is one and it was operational) is required for a visual approach. Nor does it result in an 85 knot speed when the target approach speed is 137.
Thank you for your polite and concise reply Anonymouse. I set out my level of knowledge in my post above. As you say, there was initial confusion as to whether the PAPI was working and you are correct, the initial reports of OTS were incorrect. As I said, there are normally many factors that result in an accident and my point still stands. Neither of us were in that cockpit so we are all speculating. As you also say and I agree with, there is something seriously wrong when you are on final at such a dangerously low airspeed. Why did none of the crew on the flight deck notice or say something? Did the situation deteriorate quickly due to a "slam dunk" approach which is not uncommon at SFO (in my limited understanding)? All questions that will no doubt be answered in due course.
Yes, you're correct. Either way it's clear that pilot error is responsible - not an inop glideslope. Thousands if not tens of thousands of landings are made every day without ILS. ILS is absolutely not required on a clear day during a visual approach.
49 comments:
Terrible accident...
Wondering how it happend
Live feed here (KTVU)
http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-live-news/vtSfR/?updated
So far, 2 fatalities... :(
307 total on-board. 2 deaths and 60 unaccounted for. 19L & 19R is back in operation.
Also we should note, the aircraft was approaching using VFR and not operating under IFR.
Tower transcript http://wandr.me/Audio/AAR214-KSFO-Crash.mp3
No it was IFR but on a visual approach (there is a difference). Also currently at SFO there are no ILS approaches or VASIS available for 28L and 28R due to works.
Okay. I heard the letters VFR in the press conference. But perhaps I misunderstood. But then again, they had the numbers wrong, and called it a seven seventy seven so...
Sounds like pilot-error;(
Indeed it does...
you guys shouldn't speculate on that....things are usually not what they seem to be in aviation...What you do not see is actually in most cases the cause of the accident:
- Colgan crash: ice on the wing...
- Concorde crash: metal piece on the rwy...
- Swissair crash: the heat....
and so on....
Last I checked, speculation was not accucation. Folks can speculate as much as they wish.
Im not trying to start a war with you Sir...pointless. Just sayin that we should refrain from speculating in the few hours following a crash, nothing more nothing less Sir. Of course we are all free human beings, but common sense should lead us to act in a certain way.
Have a good night guys.
Too much Wingflex probably
I can speculate all I want, its my internet
Plus Colgan was not caused by ice on the wing at all but rather by pilot induced stall that was not ice related and further subsequent improper control inputs by the pilot. So nice try, but no.
Commercial passenger flights are required to operate under ifr. It was on a visual approach. Pilot was below glideslope and impacted tail short of the runway. Bay area pilot here.
Almost certainly is.
Sorry, this is the wrong news for jokes.
Thought-Police ^^
There's no glideslope or PAPI/VASI available so it's eyeballs out the window (CAVOK blue sky day) and a bit of mental guesswork to judge vertical profile.
If you want to find a more informative discussion head to PPRuNe.
BTW I have seen commercial RPT flights flown VFR low-level during exceptional events, like that Icelandic volcano thing a few years ago. It's quite funny (and unsettling) to see 737s and Airbuses barreling around at 3000ft and scud-running under VFR.
More info here:
http://tinyurl.com/ko76g9u
It was obviously CaptainSim's 777, because PMDG's is not yet released and will of course be bug free on release
Pilot error or not, tribute should be payed to Boeing engineers who put together such a robust plane. That's the second time T7 is hitting the ground in such way and (almost) everybody walks away. If it was different jet (e.g. MD-11) I guess it would have been a horrible disaster..
Grow up guys. 2 people died. Pick another venue to tell jokes about a crash. Your posts should be banned.
@Ipeeintheloo
That was evil and yet i laughed. I'll burn in hell because of you, damn it
grow up man... if you can...
read the ntsb report sir! you are totally wrong "anonymouse"
I agree with you Martin. And for the recort, I dont care what the report said, I staunchly believe the BA777 was pilot error.
The PAPI was operational. It was notamed inop after the accident because it was destroyed in the crash. Besides that weather was totally clear and calm winds, no pilot should have even needed PAPI or its to tell him where he was on the glideslope.
I did really the ntsb report and you have no idea what you are talking about.
On February 2, 2010, the NTSB adopted its final report into the accident. This was the first time in 15 years that a report had been adopted by the NTSB in less than a year from the date of the accident. It concluded that the cause of the accident was pilot error.
The captain failed to react in the proper manner, by decreasing the angle-of-attack, when the stick shaker activated.
The stick shaker activated because the captain has selected a switch to increase vref speeds due to icing conditions, but in fact at the time of stick shaker activation the aircraft was still 10 to 20 knots away from a stall. Normal recovery would have been to simply increase power and slightly nose down to recover airspeed and avert a stall.
Instead, following the activation of both the stick shaker and the stick pusher, he countermanded by pulling back on the stick, which greatly exacerbated the situation. "...his improper flight control inputs were inconsistent with his training and were instead consistent with startle and confusion."
The NTSB was unable to determine why the first officer retracted the flaps and also suggested that the landing gear should be retracted. Her actions were also inconsistent with company stall recovery procedures and training. The actions of both pilots led to the aircraft entering an accelerated stall.
Agreed.
Wow...
And yet another P3 comment removed. That takes us to what? 15 this weekend?
D'Andre, is there no way to block his IP?
He causes nothing but trouble on the blog, and his comment here was incredibly tasteless.
I believe we have to put in a request to Google for that. But then again that's like banning him. I have another thought to deal with him though. We can divert comments from his IP to fgo directly to spam. So for future refrence we will have to moderate his comments along with the trash.
Its the next step if he keeps this up.
This is completely ridiculous, how is this p3 guy even saying all this sh*t? 99% of the time, he had nothing postitive to contribute. Smart move DAndre.
It is a shame that you guys have had to start moderating comments, yet in this case, it seemed necessary... Good job ADX
" ...I dont care what the report said, I staunchly believe the BA777 was pilot error"
But you are aware that this is a flight simulation blog and people here are all "officially youtube proofed aviation experts(some maybe Angle of Attack proofed".
It is all about matematical probabilty and the most likely answer was ice in the oil-flow heat exchangers of the Trent 800. RR redesigned it and replaced all of them.
Looks more like a design issue of the engine manufacturer rather than an 777 issue.
Sometimes we hit the button too fast when comments are lined up. The moderation adds to the workload. Wish we didn't have to do it a all but you clearly see what happens...
Asiana said the pilot in charge of landing the 777 was training and was his first flight to the airport with the jet...
43 hours experience.
And probably most of those 43 hours is spend in cruise flight. I think they should start only taking into account takeoffs and landings when calculating hours. Any experienced simmer could handle the cruise workload anyway. I had a doubt about the landing speed when I saw the data on FlightAware. Also it showed the aircraft airborne after having touched down as seen in the video. It must have been a terrifying experience. You can only guess the shock it caused to the pilots when you hear the ATC recordings. I kinda feel sad for them but these are the risks for the job. In any case it seems they were too low and too slow. Probably stalled just before touched down but hopefully they were already too close to the ground. My condolences to the families.
Oh BTW,
There is amatuer video of the final approach and crash on the CNN homepage. It was very disturbing to watch. Amazing so many got out alive.
The video is certainly an eye-opener - that T7 is truly a sturdy aircraft!
As regards the 43 hours Issa's point is a little circular - The only way to increase experience of take offs and landings is to practice them and it seems that is what this FO was doing - all fine so far. The problem would appear to be that his inexperience got him into difficulties that the Captain (or those in the jumpseats) should have picked up on.
As with any accident, this is only one factor of many - including things such as inop ILS, no PAPI and landing over water with a short threshold.
Obviously this comment is pure speculation and I am an armchair judge with limited knowledge and no real life experience so please accept it in that fashion.
All the best
Dave W
@Dave W, there was a PAPI so what exactly are you talking about? Besides, neither an ILS glideslope nor a PAPI (although there is one and it was operational) is required for a visual approach. Nor does it result in an 85 knot speed when the target approach speed is 137.
Thank you for your polite and concise reply Anonymouse. I set out my level of knowledge in my post above. As you say, there was initial confusion as to whether the PAPI was working and you are correct, the initial reports of OTS were incorrect. As I said, there are normally many factors that result in an accident and my point still stands. Neither of us were in that cockpit so we are all speculating. As you also say and I agree with, there is something seriously wrong when you are on final at such a dangerously low airspeed. Why did none of the crew on the flight deck notice or say something? Did the situation deteriorate quickly due to a "slam dunk" approach which is not uncommon at SFO (in my limited understanding)? All questions that will no doubt be answered in due course.
As a footnote, reports suggest lowest speed reached was 103 knots - not 83, see, we can all make mistakes (as the Dalek said climbing off the dustbin)
Regards
Yes, you're correct. Either way it's clear that pilot error is responsible - not an inop glideslope. Thousands if not tens of thousands of landings are made every day without ILS. ILS is absolutely not required on a clear day during a visual approach.
Post a Comment
Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.