A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

[Colonel Sanders]

almost every time we land on the 28 s in KSFO, they leave you high on downwind because of terrain and traffic and then try and make you take the visual, when they turn you to base. Having a u/s glideslope does not help at all.

From elsewhere on the internet:

... it appears that AAR214 flew an unstabilized approach ... used FlightAware radar return data to plot the groundspeed and altitude AAR214 (red) as well as UAL852 (black), another 777 that landed successfully only 10 minutes earlier.

What you can see is that the UAL582 approach is stabilized, with a nearly contant 3.2 deg glideslope, and Vref=145 kt for the final 3 nm of the approach.

On the other hand, AAR214 is 500 feet or so above glideslope, and 20 kt or so faster, for much of the approach. The aircraft is descending with a high sink rate and slowing, so that about 1.5 nm out, the aircraft finally hits the glideslope and Vref (assuming that Vref is about 145 kt), but continues to slow and descend below glideslope.

... looks like the aircraft got low and slow trying to recover from a high and fast approach

Clearly, overshooting from an unstabilized approach
was never an option. AF358 @ YYZ taught us that.

[Gino Under]

BA38 had Rolls Royce Trent engines.
The Asiana accident aircraft had PW engines.
DIFFERENT engines. Yes. But, both engines use the Goodrich FADEC.
So, what were the specifics of the AD in terms of the 777 fuel feed?

While the FADEC itself may not be the immediate cause, what role will the fuel system components play. IF icing in the fuel filters turns out to be the culprit, and it could well be, it explains why they hit the tail short of the landing threshold in a similar fashion to BA38.

A visual Localizer approach should be a non-event for VNAV PATH NPA backup to this runway especially for an experienced crew. If, in fact, that was their backup?
PAPI outage, I doubt this will be much of a factor.

If AT doesn't maintain speed (as BA38) then manual nose up pitch to arrest the descent that late in the approach could result in a tail strike, stall or loss of control.

I'm not going to point my finger at this crew just yet.

We'll see in the days ahead.

Gino Under

[Bede]

Any guesses why the top of the fuselage burnt and not the wing tanks or center tank?

[Pratt X 3]

Any guesses why the top of the fuselage burnt and not the wing tanks or center tank?

Best guess would be the engine (right?) that ended up next to the right side of the fuselage had something to do with the fire starting.

[Gino Under]

Heat rises.
Combustible material in the ceiling catches fire.
Fire burns through the roof.
Oxygen makes it worse.

That's my analysis.

Gino

[pdw]

Clearly, overshooting from an unstabilized approach
was never an option. AF358 @ YYZ taught us that.

'Clear' as day here ... just nobody's seen it yet

KSFO Metar/Atis shows a light left crosswind at 6knots, but the accident smoke indicates otherwise. This aircraft was landing in the same direction (rwy 28L) as the general accident smoke is travelling (Videos , Photos ... KSFO accident July 6/2013 11:28am).

Without the smoke, if an accident has not happened because of an overshoot, the pilots can verify their decision with precise weather records to save face (if needed) where the difficulty is ecountered in stronger wind-switch/shears (like those French pilots had on AF358).

[Rookie50]

Icing in the fuel is a possibility. Long flight, powers down for approach, gets a touch low, advances throttle, ice prevents timely response?

[Independence]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-0 ... korea.html

The Bloomberg story says that one of the pilots had 43 hours on the 777. Shouldn't cause an accident but may have contributed when the situation got out of hand.

[Flying Nutcracker]

Turkish 1951 in Amsterdam comes to mind...

[boeingboy]

While icing could be possible - I doubt it. The fuel heaters were re-designed to prevent clogging. I suppose an old one could have been installed, however its probably pretty remote that it is the cause.

As for the fire, You can see clearly that the fire starts outside the fuse on the right side, then other pics show a burn at the approximate floor level right next to the #2 engine - which was resting against the fuse. The fire started on the engine and burned through the lower right side of the fuse. Once the fire got in the cabin that was it. Passengers even said fire and smoke started later - after most were out. This would also account for the fact that the back half of the cabin is not fire damaged.

[boeingboy]

Interesting to note - investigators are saying the 2 fatalities (2 16 year old girls) were seated at the rear of the plane. The whole evacuation to me seems not very rushed. The pilots were still talking on the radios after it crashed, and people grabbing luggage. It also seems to take a long time (at least from photos) for people to get off. Were they just sitting in the plane waiting to be rescued?

I have no facts except photos and atc recordings, on which to base my thoughts, but it would seem if you just went through that - GET THE HELL OFF THE PLANE!

[Colonel Sanders]

I have to ask. I just fly little airplanes (prop, jets) - I
don't fly those great big crowd-killers, and I don't give
a sh1t what anyone else thinks.

But I have to ask: Every time you overshoot out
of an dangerously unstabilized approach, does your
CP publicly and ritually strip you of one of your gold
bars, followed by a required Walk of Shame (tm)
out of the room, in front of all of your fellow pilots
shaved closely and dressed in their finest, pressed and
dry-cleaned uniforms, with the drummer slowly keeping
time with your step, going tick-tick-tick on the metal
edge of the drum with his wooden stick.

'Cause, that's how it looks to the rest of us.

one of the pilots had 43 hours on the 777

Uh huh. And how many approaches did he fly in those
43 long-haul hours?

[complexintentions]

Colonel,

Your seeming slightly homo-erotic obsession with Top Gun imagery is mildly odd and a bit telling, but that aside, I wouldn't doubt that in some Asian carriers, the process isn't much off what you describe. "Saving face" is more important than saving your own life, and challenging The Captain, aka "God"? Fuggedeboutit.

I've landed the B777 many times on 28L and 28R and yeah, it gets busy in there. Not a big deal if you're from Canada/US and grasp how US ATC works, but with a multi-national pilot group it can be interesting observing from the jumpseat how other backgrounds handle it. The standard arrival puts you directly overhead at 11,000 feet for a downwind left or right, and then they turn you base when they feel like it, and assign you a visual when you haven't asked for it. None of this pretty Constant Descent Angle stuff, if you're drifting down like an autumn leaf and they turn you base at 8,000 feet too bad for you. And then it gets busy. I know, I know, easy for you, you'd just do some aerobatic crap and roll upside down and all that, but it's not quite as snappy in something weighing 240 tons. So for the rest of us I always advise get that speed way back, throw some bigger wing out if necessary, and pull that speedbrake handle. If you're ahead of it it's no problem. If you're complacent you will probably end up with egg on your face. But the key is being slightly aggressive with the descent early.

Sure it's unfair to speculate about Asiana 214. But there are some facts that are beyond dispute, such as that the weather was no factor and thus, any lack of navaids is irrelevant. So that leaves some freakishly improbable mechanical malfunction. Since I'm cynical by nature and not inclined to bet on .00001% theories, I'm pretty content to go out on a limb and agree wholeheartedly with other speculation that involves getting high, trying to save face by trying to save the approach, and then smacking the hell out of the ground. It's just too consistent with what I've seen from the flying cultures in Asia and South Asia. OF course, that will get some people's panties in a twist, Canada being so correct an' all. But before you hang me bear in mind I am referring to cultural mindsets, not skin colours.

[CpnCrunch]

But I have to ask: Every time you overshoot out
of an dangerously unstabilized approach, does your
CP publicly and ritually strip you of one of your gold
bars

Compare to: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... xt#p815933

[bizjets101]

Click Here , CNN crash caught on video.

[bizjets101]

Crew called for more power 7 seconds prior to impact, at 4 seconds stick shaker is heard, at 1.5 seconds called for go around. NTSB

[Colonel Sanders]

I know, I know, easy for you, you'd just do some aerobatic crap and roll upside down and all that, but it's not quite as snappy in something weighing 240 tons

Well, it's sure not 240 tons (it's only 80 tons) but
there are a very few old guys out there that can
really make a fat pig sing and dance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYH0j71Qr_k

[teacher]

Crashed Asiana 777 flew “significantly” below target speed on approach: NTSB

PrintBy: Stephen Trimble Washington DC 27 minutes ago

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... sb-388008/

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirms on 7 July that the pilots of Asiana Airlines flight 214 flew slower than the target approach speed and attempted a go-around about 1.5sec before crashing on the runway at the San Francisco airport.

The new data from the cockpit voice recorder examined overnight by the NTSB show that a flight crew member aboard the Boeing 777-200ER called to increase speed about 7sec prior to impact.

The flight data recorder also confirmed that a stall warning activated aurally and physically as the crew plunged below the 137kt target approach speed.

"The speed was significantly below 137kt," says NTSB chairman Deborah Hersman. "We're not talking about a few knots."

The transcript and data record adds to mounting evidence of pilot error in the incident that killed two passengers and injured more than 180, of the 307 passengers and crew aboard the aircraft, although the NTSB continues to rule nothing out.

Earlier in the day, Asiana Airlines reportedly acknowledged there isno evidence of mechanical error aboard the 777-200ER or the Pratt & Whitney PW4090 engines.

Hersman verified the Asiana executive's remarks. The voice recorder revealed no discussion among the crew of any systems or power anomalies as the aircraft was on final approach. In the moment before impact, data recorder shows the engines responded normally after the crew commanded the futile go-around attempt.

The tail of the 777-200ER slammed into the seawall separating the San Francisco Bay from the foot of Runway 28L. The aircraft also damaged several of the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights that precede the runway.

If they were functioning before they were damaged, the PAPI lights should have indicated to the flight crew if their approach was too low.

Flight 214 was flying a normally routine visual approach on Runway 28L, with a 7kt wind from the southwest and 10mi visibility. All that is required for such an approach is the visual recognition of the pilot.

Even so, the NTSB plans to scrutinise the potential influence of the lack of a glide slope indicator, which has been deactivated since 1 June as airport officials began a construction project on the far side of the runway, Hersman says.

"There's been a lot of discussion about stabilized approaches and we're going to be looking at that very closely," Hersman says.

[Strega]

It sad the very job the pilots were hired to do, they simply could not...


Have the basic skills of flying been lost in the world of the airlines and airbus type operations?


S

[boeingboy]

WOW!

Watching the video of the actual crash...........his nose was WAAAY up. and it dragged through the water for some time - im suprised the plane didn't stall and fall on the seawall rather than smacking the tail on it. No doubt in my mind - crew f%$#ked up. Got behind the power curve trying to slow down. Too low, no power all you can do is haul back on the stick and pray.

Go around should have been called well before that.

I.m also suprised it became so airborne again - it ALMOST rolled over during its wild 360. Those passengers are more lucky than i first thought. Well built plane - it sure took a pounding.