12
   

777 Crashes on Landing in San Francisco

 
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 09:41 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Could be. Black boxes are sometimes more honest.


We could water board them.......LOL
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Jul, 2013 10:54 pm
@BillRM,
I think they're designed to be waterproof.

Or, were you talking about the pilots?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 03:55 am
@BillRM,
So far it looks to me like pilot error. The pilot was probably asleep or incapacitated in some way (drugs or alcohol most likely).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 06:32 am
Has there been any information reported yet from the tower on when their last contact with the pilot(s) occurred? Or have the pilots said anything yet?

Based on the evidence reported so far I'm having a hard time seeing how this could be anything other than pilot error in some form. Photo's show debris starting at the sea wall, and ground based witnesses report an impact short on the runway. So we know it hit the sea wall. And none of the surviving passengers reported any communications or warnings from the pilots before impact, and no unusual events or movements of the airplane before impact. Some of the passengers reported looking out the windows before landing and seeing that they were too low. If the passengers could see that, you would think the pilots would have seen it as well (if they were paying attention).

I'm sure aviation regulations require more than one pilot at the controls during landing when more than one pilot is available (as in this case), so that rules out a heart attack or stroke for the pilot late in the landing procedure (unless the co pilot was distracted and they both became incapacitated in some way).

And I also think (but I'm not sure) that the tower would become suspicious if they hadn't made some type of contact with the pilots during approach (even thought the plane can probably almost land itself on auto-pilot). So I would think the pilot couldn't simply have been asleep all the way through the approach and landing or the tower would have been squawking at them enough to wake the up.

Not everything adds up on this. Makes me wonder if there might have been some type of carbon dioxide buildup in the cabin which incapacitated both pilots. It's either that or massive incompetence on the part of the pilot(s).

Need more data.
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:19 am

there was speculation last night that the explosion could have been a lot worse, but they were prolly low on fuel when they landed...
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:21 am
@rosborne979,
Have a listen for yourself. They were in contact right up to the crash, and again after.

https://soundcloud.com/sellouts-1/ksfo-twr-jul-2013-1800z-asiana
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:21 am
The other similar plane crash involving a 777 was blamed on a failed engine.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 08:37 am
@LionTamerX,
It sounded like the pilot was coming in too low and got hung up on something (seawall?) at beginning of runway. Perhaps pilot error is to blame...who knows? Too soon to tell but it's merciful that there were not more deaths, though 2 is a number that is far too many. This plane cartwheeled a few times after the initial contact and the tail section broke off. I'm amazed and how things progressed.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:21 am
I was somewhat surprise to see that the chairperson of the NTSB was a fairly young looking and fairly hot woman.

Turn out she is in her early forties [she look even younger to me] and have zero engineering/technology background having worked her way up beginning with an unpaid congressional internship.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:17 am
@LionTamerX,
LionTamerX wrote:

Have a listen for yourself. They were in contact right up to the crash, and again after.
https://soundcloud.com/sellouts-1/ksfo-twr-jul-2013-1800z-asiana

Well, the pilots were clearly awake and it seems like they were actively involved in the landing, even though I am having a real hard time understanding what they are talking about (need a transcript I guess).

Nobody in the conversation even sounds excited or worried until after the crash. Seems weird to me. Maybe I'm just not hearing it right.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 01:58 pm
Apparently before this evening is over they'll have read and digested the info recorded the black box(es)/flight recorder and find a substantial amount of info.

Just saw an amateur video (gawd-bless cellphones) of the plane's landing from a distance across the water at a place called Bayside Park. In the final moments the pilots were trying to pull the nose up seemingly to elevate and the tail is what hit the seawall.
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 02:34 pm
@Ragman,

this one?


0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 02:44 pm
@Ragman,
Yeh, there was one woman who described that pretty well, when I was reading, stunned, last evening.

I also picked up that the pilot's (s'?) effort to dig out by increasing engine thrust (whatever, I don't know the words) made it difficult injury wise on the passengers in the back of the plane. Obviously I'm not clear about that. If that is so, it would be hard to hear for the pilot, but maybe useful as a learning tool in the future.

Meantime, too bad the construction that involved moving the runway further from the sea wall wasn't finished.

SFO always sort of scared me to land in, but I still liked the place.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 03:40 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
I also picked up that the pilot's (s'?) effort to dig out by increasing engine thrust (whatever, I don't know the words) made it difficult injury wise on the passengers in the back of the plane.


Jet engines take many seconds to wind up IE increased power and the plane ran out of time as they stalled it by increasing the nose angle of attack and by doing so lowing the tail enough to hit the sea wall.

In my humble opinion they should had kept the plane level until the increased power came into affect and they could then had climb back for a go around after the engines had spool up.

If the plane had been kept level the worst outcome would be ruining the landing gear by slamming the plane on the runway.

Yes, I only have a few hours in a 737 FAA approved simulator but I think that is likely to be the same conclusion that anyone who had ever flown any type of aircraft would come to.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 05:14 pm
Quote:
July 7, 2013
Pilots Tried to Abort Landing Before Crash, N.T.S.B. Says
By CHRISTOPHER DREW, MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and MATTHEW L. WALD

SAN FRANCISCO — The chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board said Sunday that pilots of the Asiana Airlines jetliner that crashed a day earlier in San Francisco tried to abort the landing just seconds before the crash.

The safety board chairwoman, Deborah Hersman, said Sunday at a briefing that a crew member called for an increase in speed seven seconds before the plane clipped an embankment at the edge of the runway. She said the plane was traveling well below the speed needed to maintain a stable angle of approach. The jetliner’s cockpit recorder included the sounds of an automatic shaking of the control yoke just before the crash, an indication that the plane was about to stall.

The device also recorded a pilot’s voice calling for a go-round 1.5 seconds before the crash. While the engines responded normally, the move came too late to prevent the crash, Ms. Hersman said. The plane’s tail section then snapped off, and the plane skidded across the runway and caught fire.

Ms. Hersman’s description of how the plane slowed generally tracks other data showing the jetliner began to descend too fast because it did not have enough airspeed. Data collected by an aviation firm suggested the plane was descending more than four times faster than normal shortly before it crashed.

At 800 feet over San Francisco Bay, the plane was descending at 4,000 feet a minute on Saturday, according to data gathered from FlightAware, a company that listens to navigation broadcasts and sells the data to airlines and others. The normal approach profile is 600 to 800 feet a minute.

At the briefing, Ms. Hersman focused mainly on whether the pilots erred while making a series of calculations needed to land.

While the pilot should have recognized the abnormally strong descent, the safety board also said Sunday that it was investigating whether construction at the airport — which had temporarily shut down an electronic system that helps guide pilots to the proper landing slope — might have played a role in the crash.

“The glide slope had been out since June,” Ms. Hersman said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“We’re going to take a look into this to understand it,” she said. “But what’s important to note is there are a lot of tools that are available to pilots.”

The FlightAware data indicated that at 100 feet above the water, the plane was descending at more than 270 feet a minute when it should have been slowing to a rate of a few feet per second. FlightAware’s data is not as precise as the information available to investigators from the plane’s flight data recorder, which the safety board began examining on Sunday. But it provides an indication that in the last moments of the flight, unless there was some as-yet undisclosed mechanical problem, crew members, from their own instrumentation, should have been aware that the plane was descending too fast.

Aviation experts said that the pilots, who were both veterans, could have also relied on red and white signal lights on the runway to visually guide the plane to touch down or, if they chose, on the plane’s onboard computers to generate the angle of approach.

Witnesses and passengers have described the jetliner as coming in too low and clipping a rocky embankment at the edge of the water just before the runway. The plane’s tail section then snapped off, and the plane skidded across the runway and caught fire.

Two passengers were killed, and at least 180 people were injured. The dead passengers were identified on Sunday as two 16-year-old Chinese students on their way to a summer camp. The students, both women, were believed to have been seated toward the back of the passenger jet, said Yoon Young-doo, the president of Asiana Airlines. Their bodies were found on the runway.

Mr. Yoon said Asiana Airlines did not believe there was anything wrong with the Boeing 777, which had been bought in 2006. At least 180 people were injured in the crash.

“So far, we don’t believe that there was anything wrong with the B777-200 or its engine,” he said. He also apologized for the crash, saying, “We are deeply sorry for causing the trouble.”


Read more here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/san-francisco-plane-crash.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 05:17 pm
@BillRM,
Thanks, you know more than me on that.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 05:24 pm
An aside, what does since June mean? (I get it there are alternative modes)
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 10:39 pm
Quote:
Pilot of Asiana Flight Had Logged Few Hours on a 777

The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Sunday that the pilots came in too slowly, took too long to realize it and tried to abort the landing seconds before the crash. The South Korean Transport Ministry said the pilot, Lee Kang-guk, had only 43 hours of experience flying a 777. It was Mr. Lee’s first time piloting a 777 into the San Francisco airport, an Asiana spokeswoman said. “For now, this itself should not be cited as if it were the cause of the accident,” said Chang Man-hee, a senior aviation policy official at the transport ministry. “Mr. Lee himself was a veteran pilot going through what every pilot has to when switching to a new type of plane.”

In a dramatic moment-by-moment account, the N.T.S.B.’s chairwoman, Deborah A. P. Hersman, suggested that crew members had little inkling of the impending crash until about seven seconds before impact, when one is heard on a cockpit recorder calling for an increase in speed. The call came too late. Three seconds later, an alarm sounded a warning that the plane was about to stall, Ms. Hersman said. One-and-a-half seconds before impact, the pilots advanced the throttles to get more power in an attempt to avert a crash. But before the plane could gain altitude, it hit the sea wall, snapping off its tail section before skidding to a stop and catching fire.

Ms. Hersman’s comments, delivered at a news briefing, were based on preliminary data provided by the Boeing 777’s cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder. Other data from a private firm, FlightAware, indicated that as the plane lost forward speed, it descended much faster than normal.

Ms. Hersman emphasized that investigators could not yet draw any conclusions about the cause of the crash. But she did not indicate any sign of a mechanical malfunction and focused almost exclusively on the actions of the pilots as they prepared for landing.

“Everything is on the table right now,” she said. “It is too early to rule anything out.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/san-francisco-plane-crash.html?hp
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2013 12:08 am
@ossobuco,
Yeah, I think BillRM is dead on target on this. (Not that I've ever been trained to fly anything that big but the aerodynamics analysis makes perfect sense.)
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2013 12:27 am
@Lustig Andrei,
The pilot has been said to be in training? Arrrgh! Are we at the beginning of flight in the 20s?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 09:26:34