A Boeing 777 Has Crash-Landed At San Francisco International

[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.

[boeingboy]

From avherald:

On Jul 7th the NTSB reported in a press conference at San Francisco Airport, the crew was cleared for a visual approach to runway 28L, the crew acknowledged, flaps were set at 30 degrees, gear was down, Vapp was 137 knots, a normal approach commenced, no anomalies or concerns were raised within the cockpit, 7 seconds prior to impact a crew member called for speed, 4 seconds prior to impact the stick shaker activated, a call to go-around happened 1.5 seconds prior to impact, this data based on a first read out of the cockpit voice recorder. According to flight data recorder the throttles were at idle, the speed significantly decayed below target of 137 knots - the exact value not yet determined -, the thrust levers were advanced and the engines appeared to respond normally. The NTSB confirmed the PAPIs runway 28L were available to the approaching aircraft before the accident, however were damaged in the accident and thus went out of service again. The localizer was available, the glideslope was out of service, according NOTAMs were in effect. There were no reports of windshear and no adverse weather conditions. The air traffic controller was operating normal, no anomaly was effective, until the controller noticed the aircraft had hit the sea wall. The controller declared emergency for the aircraft and initiated emergency response. ARAIB and Asiana personnel have arrived on scene and have joined the investigation. The Mayor of San Francisco reported runway 10L/28R was cleared for service.

PAPI's were available.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

[lostaviator]

So would this have happened if the ILS was serviceable?

I think it is time to dust off the PPL books and starting reviewing how to use your hands and feet. Automation is great but we need to know how to do without.

[AirFrame]

The most amazing thing about that video in my mind is that you can see the fuselage and wings pointing *backwards* at one point as it lifts up... Which means it turned a full horizontal circle before coming to a stop where everyone saw it on the news. Until that point, I figured the tail came off, it flopped down on the runway, and then slid off to the infield mostly in a straight line.

[Eric Janson]

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.

In 20 years of Jet flying at 4 different Airlines I have never heard a word about any go-around I've made from a Chief Pilot. I've always worked in a "no penalty go-around" culture. That's how things should be.

I won't hesitate to make a go-around or call for one if needed.

In a recent ground school it was emphasised that clearance for an approach is also clearance for a go-around.

In Eastern culture a go-around is seen as a loss of "face" so it's not going to happen.
In Eastern culture it is not acceptable to challenge the decisions of a superior.

Eastern culture is not compatible with the operation of modern jet aircraft.


@Strega

Lack of Basic flying skills is becoming a real problem. Unfortunately the trend is towards even more automation. Expect to see more accidents where this is a factor.

[Flying Nutcracker]

On an ILS, most likely not. Like I said before... FMA-awareness. I am curious to see if this was handflown. If it was, it's easy to intercept a glidepath and assume the A/T do their thing. If the mode was wrong, they would not! You are left trimming the airplane, thinking the A/T keep your speed protected. With all the up trim to keep a 3 degree path at idle as the airspeed decays, a go-around will bring a full on surprise with full thrust.

Again... Facts are still coming in, but things sounds very familiar...

[crazy_aviator]

I would bet anyone here $100 bucks that it was an unstabilized approach, PNF saying diddly squat ( Asian CRM ) VISUAL approach for pilots who are bad at hand flying, Got it a little high, chopped the power to do a greaser early (Another regional fault) NOW got too low and slow and with a slow spool up and LATE overshoot, the tail will hit, with spooling up engines, one breaking off, the other sending the A/C off the runway. OKAY , investigation CLOSED off to another topic

As the story unfolds , i figure less and less folks will take me up on my bet. The same messed up cultures that have wars right now ( Egypt/Syria ) cannot use wisdom in airline ops BUT the SAD thing is we are IMPORTING this culture and way of life (religion) into our own more ADVANCED cultures ( Not an ounce of political correctness there, i aught to be kicked and banned by the brainwashed government/NWO pleasing sheeples on here lol )

[Indanao]

There is a rumor the Altimeter may not have been reset from 29.92 at cruise. The field Altimeter Setting was 29.81. An altimeter error of -.1 would put them 100ft low, and 1000ft short. ( If they were flying an electronic generated glide slope, it would take them to the Sea Wall. ) ?? A VFR approach shouldn't have that problem.

[silky28]

I'm no expert, by any means...other than at landing 747 in xplane 10 but....

It immediately occurred to me that he was too low and too slow and descending too fast. He went nose up (almost like an early flare) to slow descent but this both slowed the aircraft more and dipped the tail which then struck the coastline snapping off the tail.

This would seem to fit with the news that the pilot tried a go-around...sounds like he couldn't get the engines spooled up fast enough to counteract the nose up position.

It's sad sad that 2 people died but it is also fantastic that only 2 died! Good work by the engineers, flight crew and emergency responders!

[CID]

Well, it's sure not 240 tons (it's only 80 tons) but....

The smallest variant is about 150 tons empty.

[jeta1]

.