A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister

Post Reply
Changes in Latitudes
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2396
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:47 am
Location: The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful.

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Changes in Latitudes »

It just keeps getting stranger...


"Pilot states he was blinded by a bright light at 500ft"
The National Transportation Safety Board on Wednesday revealed that the Asiana pilot at the controls of the Boeing 777 that crashed at San Francisco International Airport over the weekend has told investigators that he was temporarily blinded by a “bright light” on the approach while passing through 500 feet.
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/acci ... 4a26cKq.99
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Siddley Hawker
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3353
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
Location: 50.13N 66.17W

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Siddley Hawker »

Just the facts, 'mam, just the facts.
Ok. Three pilots sat on their collective asses and watched as a perfectly serviceable aircraft flew itself into the ground.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Donald »

Siddley Hawker wrote: Ok. Three pilots sat on their collective asses and watched as a perfectly serviceable aircraft flew itself into the ground.
Are we sure about this? While a lack of situational awareness/monitoring seems obvious, was there also an auto throttle system failure? Or something else?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gino Under
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 834
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Gino Under »

SheriffPat

Based on your vertical stabilizer comments regarding the A300-600, I'd like to point out that you don't use the rudder controls in flight in the 600 (or very rarely and in rather specific circumstances) and as a matter of fact, many other jetliners. You keep your feet on the floor. That goes for the A310 as well plus other Airbus models.

I'm not sure why so many seem hung up on 'stick and rudder' skills when in so many of these aircraft types you keep your feet out of it.
The example accident you hauled out was caused by the PF responding as he was trained to do with aggressive rudder application during a wake turbulence encounter contrary to Airbus directives and training but in compliance with American Airlines upset training. (Which they have since abandoned) The vertical stab was stressed beyond its limit and simply got snapped off as a result.

Airbus isn't the only OEM to have had a pilot exceed structural limits in flight which have resulted in an accident. Not only are your comments inaccurate but I'll bet they are probably also an insult to Airbus, the Authorities who certified the aircraft and I'm pretty sure, a good number of present and former A300 pilots.
Do you have time in the 600?

Gino Under :partyman:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gino Under on Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Siddley Hawker
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3353
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 6:56 pm
Location: 50.13N 66.17W

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Siddley Hawker »

Well the airplane did get them from Seoul to San Francisco, so I'd call it serviceable. :smt102
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gino Under
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 834
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Gino Under »

"Three pilots sat on their collective asses and watched as a perfectly serviceable aircraft flew itself into the ground".
Hmmm...
or into the Everglades.

I wonder what the conversation would be if we turned our attention to another accident on a much less automated aircraft. The L1011.
Look up the Eastern 401 accident in the Everglades.

Gino :snipe:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Gino Under on Fri Jul 12, 2013 7:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
SheriffPatGarrett
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:11 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by SheriffPatGarrett »

Things could be worse...or:
Why so many of those countries' pilots are expatriates:
TOKYO, Feb. 13 1982— Investigators into the crash of a Japan Air Lines DC-8
in which 24 people died on Tuesday say there was a struggle in the cockpit only moments
before the jetliner fell into Tokyo Bay 300 yards short of the main runway at Haneda Airport.
It was also reported that the captain had been grounded for a year because of a psychosomatic illness.

The police, pointing to pilot error as the cause of the accident, said that one of the airliner's
four jet engines was put into reverse thrust just before the crash, causing the plane to lose altitude sharply.
The plane was carrying 174 people, including a crew of 8.

The police have made no formal statement on responsibility for the extraordinary action,
nor did Japan Air Lines. But Japanese newspapers quoted unidentified officials as saying
that Capt. Seiji Katagiri, 35 years old, put the engine into reverse with a control lever.

Speaking of the struggle, the Kyodo News Agency said that the flight engineer,
Yoshimi Ozaki, 48, ''stood up to seize the captain.''

The police said that the co-pilot, Yoshifumi Ishikawa, 33, tried to pull back on the
controls to bring the plane out of a nose-dive but was unable to do so.
They did not say why. Mental State Is Questioned

The Japanese press suggested that the pilot lost his senses. The Japan Times said a voice
recording showed that ''Captain Katagiri was in an abnormal state, crying out loud in the cockpit''
on the approach as the plane was still some distance from the airport.
From eyewitnesses, apparently cappie Seiji Katagiri was the first to embark on a rescue boat...
He reportedly claimed to rescuers that he was an office worker to avoid detection.
Image

Image
Capt. Seiji Katagiri, 35, (second from left) the pilot of last Tuesday’s crashed Japan Air Lines DC-8,
sits in an airport bus on route to the airport hotel after he was rescued with other survivors.

Not even getting into Silkair 185 and cover up...

Image
an insult to Airbus
Airbus is a vast bureaucracy primarily interested in self preservation,
as their Mulhouse crash stealing and falsification of the flight recorders prove.

Same with the Silk Air crash when Boeing retracted their lawsuit on the crew's "suicide"
to avoid investigation of their yaw dampers' hard overs...I remember coming on board
737 with the outgoing crews white as sheet due to getting almost inverted...which was
an "unmentionable" item for the logbook...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by SheriffPatGarrett on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Donald »

Siddley Hawker wrote:Well the airplane did get them from Seoul to San Francisco, so I'd call it serviceable. :smt102
Well British Airways 38 made it from Beijing to just short of Heathrow, was it serviceable?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Independence
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:43 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Independence »

"Blinded by a bright light". Seems to me that "I've been blinded by a bright light....you have control" would solve that problem.
---------- ADS -----------
 
crazy_aviator
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:13 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by crazy_aviator »

The only "blinding" is the PF trying to blind-side the investigators to save "face" EPIC FAILURE :lol: Ummm, im blinded, but thats okay, im PIC and i can take this baby in blind, i dont need no co-jo, im going to succeed regardless ( or i will loose face) :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
spaner
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:18 am
Location: BC Interior

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by spaner »

Boy! Do you guys need a taco!

You know the thread is going sideways when people start posting videos...

http://www.movieweb.com/movie/sunshine/ ... gen-garden

Pretty much sums up the automation debate for me.

"click, click..click, click" There is no confusion between my brain, and my hands.

Land aircraft.

Remember Wayyyyy back when...when computers were supposed to make life easier?
Ever go into a 7-11 when the hydro is down, to buy a can of pop? You ain't buying nothing. "can't sell to you Sir, the power is out. "Here's a 5er, more than enough to cover it". "I'm sorry sir, I'm not authorized to make any sales outside of the computer."

Pretty much sums up this crash, no computer, no fly....bent tin.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by pdw »

Cat Driver wrote:A modern well equipped jet airliner was allowed to land short of a runway that was visible from at least ten miles on a clear day with no significant wind factor.
The NTSB youtube presentation points out that they were "high at 4000 feet", and it shows the accident happened prior to the "103kts", where the sequence was already underway, approx 2 miles east of where the wings and fuselage came to rest. It suggests the sequence may have initiated at "500 feet" / "134knots" about 2.5 natical miles out, which is 4 miles East and 500ft above the center of the airport (where " no significant wind factor" is recorded).
---------- ADS -----------
 
coreydotcom
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:41 am
Location: Montreal

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by coreydotcom »

I think I'm almost at 40 hours. Maybe something like 39.1. Anyways, my instructor has drilled into me since hour 1 that I must have the proper airspeed on final, or things start getting messy.

I won't comment on this crew as I have no clue what it's like to fly a wide-body jet, but even with all the automation, I thought the PNF's job was to monitor certain parameters, one of them doubtlessly being airspeed !?!? Sure, automate to the max, great, but you still need to monitor it, and know how it works. Even if on autothrottles, you should see that you are 30+kts below approach speed.

And can someone with experience on a big jet comment about this? Isn't a visual in a jet the same as in a 152... if you feel like the runway is "running away", add power, if you're creeping up on it "slash power".... wouldn't you be pretty in tune to your approach path especially at SFO on 28L as if you are getting too low it'll feel like you're going in the drink?

One last thing, **if** the NTSB concluded it is 100% pilot error, is this criminal negliglence? Getting an aircraft so unstabilized, continuing the approach, and then this eventually leads to deaths (directly or indirectly as a result of the accident... TBD I guess). If my family was on this jet I'd want the crew jailed for what they did, if it turns out that it is their fault.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by CID »

Indanao
Indanao wrote:occasions to use a side slip
That's an easy one. On a high performance swept wing airliner? Never. With the possible exception of a dead stick landing at which point you've already done something very bad or the airplane has suffered a very rare system failure.

The buzz word on approaches using large airlines is "stabilized". Side-slipping not only fails to meet the definition of "stabilized" in the context of an approach. it places tremendous stresses on the vertical stab, creates a downward momentum that will take a great deal of energy to correct and it disrupts airflow through the engines causing increases in core temperatures.

I'm not saying that the occasional old captain displaced from the air force hasn't done it. I'm staying it's really not smart and potentially disastrous. If you're the PF on a 777 on final and you feel that perhaps a slide-slip will save the approach, you've already done something wrong and it's time for a TOGA party.

Keep in mind I'm talking about side-slip on the approach, not de-crabbing just before touch down. And if you're flying a twin otter, side-slip all you like. Still not a finesse move but much less dangerous.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Double Wasp
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:08 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Double Wasp »

Cat Driver wrote:When we get away from the infighting here between anonymous posters we are left with some known facts.

A modern well equipped jet airliner was allowed to land short of a runway that was visible from at least ten miles on a clear day with no significant wind factor.

And not only was it landed short of the runway it was at stick shaker speed at the same time.

It may have been suicide or the bright light that the pilot flying claims blinded him that was only seen by him...we don't really know yet.

But we can be reasonably sure that this accident was truly a big one as far as what we will see coming down the line with regard to how airplanes will be flown after all the new rules get put together as the industry tries to compensate for incompetent crews flying commercial jets......regardless of their culture.

Completely Agree,

This one will be the shining example for years to come on how to screw up what should be a non-event... the apparently "dreaded" visual approach.

Folks if you can't look out the window and safely land the thing, when the weather is essentially CAVOK, there is something wrong.

DW
---------- ADS -----------
 
Indanao
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Indanao »

CID wrote:Indanao
Indanao wrote:occasions to use a side slip
That's an easy one. On a high performance swept wing airliner? Never. With the possible exception of a dead stick landing at which point you've already done something very bad or the airplane has suffered a very rare system failure....

I call B.S. on that. It sure worked on the 767. Any Pilot should be able to handle the Airplane to the full extent of it's capabilities if they are going to carry Paying Passengers.
But...eh, you know it all right?
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by CID »

Indanao, yes. They should also be able to fly a stabilized approach and not let it get away on them to the extent they would need to side-slip.

Next you'll tell me that airline pilots should be trained to do barrel rolls and loops.
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyinthebug
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:36 am
Location: CYPA

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by flyinthebug »

CID wrote:Indanao, yes. They should also be able to fly a stabilized approach and not let it get away on them to the extent they would need to side-slip.

Next you'll tell me that airline pilots should be trained to do barrel rolls and loops.
Although I agree with a lot of what your saying CID, maybe give this video a quick watch. Its perfectly safe to barrel roll a 707 so I figure a 777 cant be that different.

Tex Johnson believed so.

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

As for my opinion on this accident. It was CLEARLY not a blinding light that distracted or blinded the pilot (s). This was 100% crew incompetence (beyond even crew error). Of all the wide body accidents in recent memory, this has to be the absolute worst case of pilot error ive ever seen. A perfectly good 777, on a CAVOK day, and they cant touch down even close to the numbers? Someone REALLY screwed this one up (i.e. the flight crew).
---------- ADS -----------
 
J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by J31 »

coreydotcom wrote:I think I'm almost at 40 hours. Maybe something like 39.1.

Isn't a visual in a jet the same as in a 152... if you feel like the runway is "running away", add power, if you're creeping up on it "slash power".... wouldn't you be pretty in tune to your approach path especially at SFO on 28L as if you are getting too low it'll feel like you're going in the drink?
Not a good idea to "slash power" in any airplane on approach. I suggest adjusting power/thrust but if you get to idle for any length of time below 1000 AGL the approach is most likely very unstable and a go around would be the the best course of action.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Beefitarian »

J31 wrote:
coreydotcom wrote:I think I'm almost at 40 hours. Maybe something like 39.1.

Isn't a visual in a jet the same as in a 152... if you feel like the runway is "running away", add power, if you're creeping up on it "slash power".... wouldn't you be pretty in tune to your approach path especially at SFO on 28L as if you are getting too low it'll feel like you're going in the drink?
Not a good idea to "slash power" in any airplane on approach. I suggest adjusting power/thrust but if you get to idle for any length of time below 1000 AGL the approach is most likely very unstable and a go around would be the the best course of action.
Well it's sort of the same but they are pretty different at the same time.

Maybe that's what happened. Flying the150 last week he did the same approach and just glided it in. 777 same height "splash!" Forgot he would be sitting 30 feet higher up when the wheels touched or in this case the tail hit the retaining wall.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Cat Driver »

Not a good idea to "slash power" in any airplane on approach. I suggest adjusting power/thrust but if you get to idle for any length of time below 1000 AGL the approach is most likely very unstable and a go around would be the the best course of action.
However....

In the event of a complete power loss one can still fly a stabilized approach and safely land any airplane assuming the pilot/'s are competent.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Beefitarian
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6610
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:53 am
Location: A couple of meters away from others.

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Beefitarian »

You've got that right cat except many planes glide differently. Factors such as weight, height, length all change the speeds and angle for approach, flare and touch down.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MUSKEG
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:49 am

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by MUSKEG »

Siddley Hawker wrote:

Ok. Three pilots sat on their collective asses and watched as a perfectly serviceable aircraft flew itself into the ground.


Are we sure about this? While a lack of situational awareness/monitoring seems obvious, was there also an auto throttle system failure? Or something else?

What does an auto throttle failure have to do with it. Im sure just pushing up the throttles would work. Look out the freaking window.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by CID »

In the event of a complete power loss one can still fly a stabilized approach and safely land any airplane assuming the pilot/'s are competent.
Yah but if I happened to be strapped to a 767 that ran out of fuel, I may think about adding a little speed and altitude on the approach "budget" and forward slip it in a bit to adjust before touchdown like they did on the Gimli glider.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Indanao
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco Internati

Post by Indanao »

IF, you could do that from the passenger's cabin....
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”