LiveATC Discussion Forums

Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: capolydude on July 06, 2013, 04:02:13 PM

Title: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: capolydude on July 06, 2013, 04:02:13 PM
First 3 minutes KSFO Tower feed from today's crash of Asiana 214.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: NoMad on July 06, 2013, 04:50:50 PM
Impressed there was only one fatality.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: bhartman on July 06, 2013, 05:17:09 PM
As always, impressed by the training and professionalism of ATC and pilots.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 06, 2013, 05:17:28 PM
Sounded like a stepped on transmission, partially heard "go around" and then a few seconds later "I have trouble".
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: blantonl on July 06, 2013, 05:38:39 PM
I wonder if this 777 had Rolls Royce engines?  If so, could this be a repeat of BA-38 at Heathrow?
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 06, 2013, 05:58:43 PM
Over the last minute of flight:
time                                                                              
02:27PM    37.5988    -122.3270    299°    West    145    167    800    -1,380 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6016    -122.3340    297°    West    141    162    600    -1,320 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6045    -122.3410    298°    West    134    154    400    -900 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6073    -122.3480    297°    West    123    142    300    -840 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6103    -122.3550    298°    West    109    125    100    -120 Descending    FlightAware
02:28PM    37.6170    -122.3740    294°    West    85      98      200    120 Climbing    FlightAware

Looks good on speed and descent on approach.
Till till 3500 ft before RWY at 123k
Then at 1000 ft before RWY at 109k - stalling.
Then 85k just before the rocks - climbing, no doubt at full throttle, but not soon enough.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: jackey1975 on July 06, 2013, 06:07:57 PM
asiana777 have PW ENGINES as far as i know
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: kimbolan on July 06, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
Asiana 214
Boeing 777-28EER
built: 2006
Pratt & Whitney PW4090
Source: Airport-Data.com
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: chrisatcc on July 06, 2013, 07:09:07 PM
great job  capolydude putting this together
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: rayc56 on July 06, 2013, 08:14:26 PM
I'm new to site and find this particular recording fascinating. My question, Is  Asiana 214 on approach and asked for emergency vehicles or has the crash landing just occured and the Asiana pilot is requesting help after the plane has come to a stop?
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: blantonl on July 06, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
Dave, this audio file has made it out into the wild without permission from you.  Additionally, many of these sources using the audio are not attributing the source.  However, I saw CNN properly attribute the source of the audio, but just wanted to make you aware.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: lfgd521rc on July 06, 2013, 09:13:54 PM
I'm new to site and find this particular recording fascinating. My question, Is  Asiana 214 on approach and asked for emergency vehicles or has the crash landing just occured and the Asiana pilot is requesting help after the plane has come to a stop?

I've listened to a long version and a short version of the audio tape. Both indicate the landing was normal, or perceived to be normal. The Tower audio gives a sudden up tempo about 58 seconds into the tape. In the background, one of the other Controllers can be heard saying "Go Around" to another aircraft. The Controller handling Asiana 214 responded to both of the downed aircraft's radio transmissions with "Emergency vehicles are on the way" and "We have everybody on the way" or something similar.

It is my belief that the Tower crew saw the crash. Based on the audio, and the location of the Tower in relation to the approach end of Runway 28 Left.
Their performance after the incident was extraordinary. They immediately moved into "Go Around" Mode.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: b757capt on July 06, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
I'm new to site and find this particular recording fascinating. My question, Is  Asiana 214 on approach and asked for emergency vehicles or has the crash landing just occured and the Asiana pilot is requesting help after the plane has come to a stop?

I've listened to a long version and a short version of the audio tape. Both indicate the landing was normal, or perceived to be normal. The Tower audio gives a sudden up tempo about 58 seconds into the tape. In the background, one of the other Controllers can be heard saying "Go Around" to another aircraft. The Controller handling Asiana 214 responded to both of the downed aircraft's radio transmissions with "Emergency vehicles are on the way" and "We have everybody on the way" or something similar.

It is my belief that the Tower crew saw the crash. Based on the audio, and the location of the Tower in relation to the approach end of Runway 28 Left.
Their performance after the incident was extraordinary. They immediately moved into "Go Around" Mode.

So where are the long and short tapes? I only see one in this thread.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 06, 2013, 10:06:20 PM
Longer version is up on Youtube, attributed to LiveATC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQSSJqLi-kE
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: Steelrman on July 06, 2013, 10:44:50 PM
There is an Asian voice speaking in the clip but I have no idea what he is saying. Can anyone make it out?
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: phil-s on July 07, 2013, 12:44:42 AM
Except for maybe "I have a problem" and when he gives his call sign, utterly unintelligible to my ear. Seemed like tower couldn't salvage anything useful out of the coms either and just kept responding "emergency vehicles are on the way".  What a mess.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: ryannayr140 on July 07, 2013, 12:52:17 AM
Doing my best to change all voice to text.  Notice that most of the pilots are professional and read everything very fast except for the important parts.  I'm not from the area so forgive me for botching the names of locations on non relevant traffic.  

0:00 Asiana 214 heavy San Francisco tower, runway 28L (you are) cleared to land.  
0:03 Alright cleared to land 28L Asiana 214.  (Inaudible)  

0:05 Skywest 5427, fly runway heading, and contact norcal departures.  
0:09 Fly runway heading go over to departures Skywest 5427, good day.  

0:12 Tower, United 85?.  
0:15 United 85 go ahead.  
0:17 United 85 at the end (of the taxiway) we might need a few more minutes, just a heads up.  
0:22 United 85, Rodger, hold short of runway 28 left let me know when you're ready.  
0:26 Hold short of 28 left united 85.  

0:28 San Fransisco tower, Skywest 5452, quiet bridge visual 28 Right.  
0:32 5452 San Fransisco tower, runway 28 right cleared to land.  
0:37 Cleared to land 28 right, Skywest 5452.  

0:39 (N7)30F...600
0:40 (Cut off by inaudable man yelling in background)
0:41 (Silence)
0:43 San Fransisco tower, Skyhawk 737 (non important transmition said slowly by foreign pilot)
0:46 Go around (tower steps on pilot)
0:48 ...500 feet over San Carlos.  

He was slow, and should have asked for permission to talk on a busy frequency like United 85 did at 0:12. Let me be clear, this pilot, nor a lack of communication were the cause of this accident.

0:50 Skywest 6389 maintain 3000!
0:53 280 3000 Skywest 6389. (said very quickly)

0:55 Hello? Asiana 214 (Inaudible)
0:57 (step on tone)
0:58 (Asiana 214) heavy, emergency vehicles are responding.  
1:01 Asiana 214!
1:03 Emergency (vehicles repond)ing.  
1:04 Okay tower, uh... uh... (very inaudible).  

1:11 Cesna 737ZD, San Francisco tower remain clear of the San Fransisco class bravo airspace, contact San Carlos tower.  
1:17 7ZD contacting San Carlos tower, and remain clear (of class bravo airspace).  

1:22 Helicopter 3SF leaving the bravo airspace in 2 miles, radar services terminated, squawk (and) maintain VFR, frequency change approved.  (not read back)

1:28 (inaudable) San Fransisco tower?

1:31 Horizon 6... (beep)

1:35 Asiana 214 heavy, San Fransisco tower.  

1:37 (Inaudible Korean with uhs)

1:42 (Horizon)635 is going around.  
1:43 Horizon 635, fly heading 265, maintain 3100.  
1:47 265 3100 Horizon 635.  
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: Gawtti on July 07, 2013, 02:14:23 AM
This clip went Worldwide ... Amazing, good job!
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: AntiguaJim on July 07, 2013, 02:29:18 AM
As we now know, the ILS and "Poppy lights" were out of service for 28L for some time before this incident.
Maybe the pilots were not aware of this. When they became aware of the problem it was too late to achieve a safe glide slope and landing. They should have initiated a go around much sooner.
One would think the pilots of the Friday flight, who made a successful landing would have notified the Asiana company of the ILS problem.  
I have experienced ILS problems when the course part was working. but the glide slope was not.
Or, was this a poorly trained pilot, which Asiana has been criticised for in the past, who was attempting a visual approach?
It will be interesting to see the final report.
Thankfully the loss of life was minimal. Prayers to their families and those injured.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: phil-s on July 07, 2013, 02:40:12 AM
That might make more sense to many written PAPI lights. 
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: AntiguaJim on July 07, 2013, 03:07:50 AM
My reference to the "Poppy Lights" is from my flight instructor many years ago. She said if I saw 4 "red poppy flowers" on final I would be pushing up poppies from my grave. I never have forgotten that, and never will.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: tyketto on July 07, 2013, 03:19:16 AM
As we now know, the ILS and "Poppy lights" were out of service for 28L for some time before this incident.
Maybe the pilots were not aware of this. When they became aware of the problem it was too late to achieve a safe glide slope and landing. They should have initiated a go around much sooner.
One would think the pilots of the Friday flight, who made a successful landing would have notified the Asiana company of the ILS problem.

Any notice of the ILS being out of service for either runway would have been added to the list of NOTAMs and broadcast over the ATIS. This means that ALL pilots would have been aware of the problem well before reaching the TRACON area. Saying that this is a company problem really has nothing to do with it.

Quote
I have experienced ILS problems when the course part was working. but the glide slope was not.
Or, was this a poorly trained pilot, which Asiana has been criticised for in the past, who was attempting a visual approach?
It will be interesting to see the final report.
Thankfully the loss of life was minimal. Prayers to their families and those injured.

this is assuming that they were on the ILS. According to the METAR, the field was VMC, so they could have been on either the Quiet Bridge or Tip Toe visual to 28L or 28R, or just the straight visual approach. My guess was the Quiet Bridge Visual, all of which would have been given clearance to by NCT.

In fact, they couldn't be on the ILS, because according to the NOTAMs, the glide paths for both 28R an 28L were unusable until mid-August, and both Cat II and Cat III ILS were not available at all until mid August, and those NOTAMs went into effect last week. So the only ILS approach available would have been to 19L, which normally would be used with East Ops.

So it was a visual approach, a CVFP, or nothing at all. BTW. Check https://www.notams.faa.gov for the NOTAMs in question. Either way, I don't think this is a 'not knowing the procedure' issue.

BL.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: AntiguaJim on July 07, 2013, 03:41:54 AM
I agree that is was an intentional visual approach.
 So now the question is why did the pilot in command misjudge his final approach so badly? According to "FlightAware" his descent was radically different than normal. Maybe his Barometric Pressure was not set correctly? It would be good to hear his landing approval from the tower and his read back.
I suppose my main question is why, upon realizing he was far above the normal glide scope, the pilot didn't declare a missed approach.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: LIIT on July 07, 2013, 05:12:28 AM
Over the last minute of flight:
time                                                                                  k      mph AGL  
02:27PM    37.5988    -122.3270    299°    West    145    167    800    -1,380 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6016    -122.3340    297°    West    141    162    600    -1,320 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6045    -122.3410    298°    West    134    154    400    -900 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6073    -122.3480    297°    West    123    142    300    -840 Descending    FlightAware
02:27PM    37.6103    -122.3550    298°    West    109    125    100    -120 Descending    FlightAware
02:28PM    37.6170    -122.3740    294°    West    85      98      200    120 Climbing    FlightAware

Looks good on speed and descent on approach.
Till till 3500 ft before at 123k
Then at 1000 ft at 109k - stalling.
Then 85k just before the rocks - climbing, no doubt at full throttle, but not soon enough.

It appears from those numbers, that the plane succeeded in climbing, but still hit the ground. Could this be because of an incorrect pressure setting?
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 07, 2013, 09:36:41 AM
He was slow, and should have asked for permission to talk on a busy frequency like United 85 did at 0:12. Let me be clear, this pilot, nor a lack of communication were the cause of this accident.
"Let me be clear" should usually be followed by something that is clear. :?
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: sykocus on July 07, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
I am always dubious of the accuracy of flightaware's numbers in the track log especially when looking at such moment in time. However I was curious as to see what they looked like so I plotted them on google earth.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/152429/AAR214.kmz The square markers are AAR214. The round ones are ANA8 which landed just before AAR214. The last data plot on flightaware that shows AAR climbing plots out to be further down the runway then AAR ever came so I think it's safe to throw that one out completely. Google earth doesn't have an MSL setting for the altitude of the makers so they aren't 100% accurate relative to the map. It's best to simply compare the height to the others. In general take it all with a grain of salt.

Also I found the flight on planefinder.net. Unfortunately the altitude in the playback doesn't update very often and the tracking ends a few miles short of the runway so not much info can be gleaned from it either.
http://planefinder.net/flight/AAR214/time/2013-07-06T18:15:00%20UTC
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: fholbert on July 07, 2013, 11:14:32 AM
Except for maybe "I have a problem" and when he gives his call sign, utterly unintelligible to my ear. Seemed like tower couldn't salvage anything useful out of the coms either and just kept responding "emergency vehicles are on the way".  What a mess.

To me it sounds like Asiana 214 is saying trouble.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: ryannayr140 on July 07, 2013, 11:48:59 AM
He was slow, and should have asked for permission to talk on a busy frequency like United 85 did at 0:12. Let me be clear, this pilot, nor a lack of communication were the cause of this accident.
"Let me be clear" should usually be followed by something that is clear. :?
Sorry I just wanted to clarify that I'm not blaming this poor man for what happened.  He was trying his best, and his English was far better than the pilot of Asiana 214. 
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: vectorboy on July 07, 2013, 02:07:56 PM
Is there a clip of NORCAL issuing the visual approach? Would be curious to hear how far out they turned him, whether or not he was instructed to follow another aircraft and any speed restrictions that may have been issued.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: tyketto on July 07, 2013, 02:18:04 PM
Is there a clip of NORCAL issuing the visual approach? Would be curious to hear how far out they turned him, whether or not he was instructed to follow another aircraft and any speed restrictions that may have been issued.

Pretty sure there is. Should be somewhere in the 1800Z-1900Z clips in the archives. Obviously, unabridged for this would be better.

BL.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 07, 2013, 03:41:01 PM
I think I've listened to all the SFO/NORCAL approach feed archives for 2013-07-06 1800z-1830z, haven't heard a single mention of Asiana 214, except for after the crash. Would appreciate knowing if you find anything.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 07, 2013, 04:02:04 PM
We pretty much thought that that stepped on "go around!" transmission was from the Asiana 214 pilot.
That opinion was from a transcriptionist who was used to dealing with a lot of different voices. She thought that the "go around" and "I have trouble" were the same voice.

The "go around" transmission could have been at the controller's or the pilot's discretion - I've experienced both. 

She's was pretty sure about the two transmissions being the same voice and she's usually right about verbal discrimination.

But - it's a not a proven fact and doesn't change anything.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: dicksummer on July 07, 2013, 04:06:52 PM
The pilot must have declared a Mayday, or the controller wouldn''t have said the crash trucks are on the way. On what basis did the pilot declare the emergency ?
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 07, 2013, 04:09:35 PM
I think "go around" and "I have trouble" is what Asiana 214 transmitted.
It seemed that if the controller had said "go around", the recording would have sounded differently.
When two radios are transmitting, you usually hear a background tone on the receiving side.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 07, 2013, 04:19:14 PM
The pilot must have declared a Mayday, or the controller wouldn''t have said the crash trucks are on the way. On what basis did the pilot declare the emergency ?

Under the circumstances, with the accident occurring in direct view of the tower, the tower controller didn't wait for  formalities and, with full authority, called for emergency services.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: dicksummer on July 07, 2013, 04:44:15 PM
Good answer. Thank you.That happened to me once at ISP.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: flyflyfly on July 07, 2013, 04:45:06 PM
I think I've listened to all the SFO/NORCAL approach feed archives for 2013-07-06 1800z-1830z, haven't heard a single mention of Asiana 214, except for after the crash. Would appreciate knowing if you find anything.

Asiana checked in 13 minutes into the recording. But no further communication between NORCAL and Asiana is recorded after that. It's mentioned a few times when NORCAL advised other aircraft about traffic. The few related bits are attached.
Title: Re: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: hburg on July 07, 2013, 04:51:55 PM
Someone got the crash on video. Interesting video watching the approach, the impact, and the final rest.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: tyketto on July 07, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
Local NPR station KQED is currently broadcasting the report by the NTSB. They just read out the first audition of the CVR.

NCT cleared them for a visual approach to 28L. Field conditions were VMC with visibility being 10SM. As far as the runways go, 28L had the localizer in use, but glide slope was OTS. So ithad to be a visual approach. Approach speed was 157kts, flaps 30.

7 seconds before impact, call was given to increase speed. 4 seconds before impact, call from pilot to go around was given. Stick shaker started to happen 1.5 seconds before impact. Impact was directly on the sea wall and PAPIs. They have footage of the actual crash looping.

It's hard for me to go further into detail as I'm hearing this on the radio of KQED's report on its Sacramento station, KQEI.

If you want to listen in, hit up www.kqed.org.

EDIT: speed was 137kts, though preliminary info is stating that their speed was MUCH slower. NTSB's actual words. Call for more speed was at 7 seconds. Stick shaker at 1.5 seconds.

With the stick shaker, this tells me they were slow on speed and close to STALL.

BL.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: flyflyfly on July 07, 2013, 04:56:46 PM
Crash video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEDZerwU7uE&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: dave on July 07, 2013, 04:56:54 PM
Dave, this audio file has made it out into the wild without permission from you.  Additionally, many of these sources using the audio are not attributing the source.  However, I saw CNN properly attribute the source of the audio, but just wanted to make you aware.

Thanks...this happens from time to time.  We try to catch most of it but unfortunately many of the news agencies employ reporters and editors who never learned how to be real journalists.  They're all in a frenzy to beat each other by minutes, and sometimes professionalism goes by the wayside.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: RadarDude on July 07, 2013, 05:21:44 PM
The NTSB has released some preliminary info via their twitter feed.

(http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad129/RadarDude/b_zpsd0cd700d.png) (http://s928.photobucket.com/user/RadarDude/media/b_zpsd0cd700d.png.html)
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: RadarDude on July 07, 2013, 05:22:37 PM
Part 2

(http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad129/RadarDude/c_zps7b2d6b44.png) (http://s928.photobucket.com/user/RadarDude/media/c_zps7b2d6b44.png.html)
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 07, 2013, 06:00:43 PM
Asiana checked in 13 minutes into the recording. But no further communication between NORCAL and Asiana is recorded after that. It's mentioned a few times when NORCAL advised other aircraft about traffic. The few related bits are attached.

Thankyou very much.

Local NPR station KQED is currently broadcasting the report by the NTSB. They just read out the first audition of the CVR.

Thanks for the tip. Very interesting.

We pretty much thought that that stepped on "go around!" transmission was from the Asiana 214 pilot.
That opinion was from a transcriptionist who was used to dealing with a lot of different voices. She thought that the "go around" and "I have trouble" were the same voice.

The "go around" transmission could have been at the controller's or the pilot's discretion - I've experienced both.

Thanks for this perspective, but it just confuses the hell out of me. I don't hear anyone call go around until well after the crash. It doesn't make sense, why would one of the Asiana pilots call go around to another aircraft on frequency, when they should be busy with their evacuation checklist? If we're talking about the call that is stepped on by Skyhawk 737, I'd say that's most likely either a controller or Skywest 6389.

And I don't hear "I have trouble". More like "San Fran tower, Asiana 214," and a little later, "Tower are you listening?" I've noticed that this particular archived LiveATC feed occasionally cuts out partial syllables and sometimes whole words, and in some cases we might not even notice when it's happened. If you compare it with the tower transmissions from the other feed (the one that combines tower and ground) there are some clear discrepancies, parts of tower transmissions that were not captured on the main feed. And unfortunately most of Asiana's transmissions were not captured on the combined feed because ground happened to be talking at the same time.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 07, 2013, 06:35:06 PM
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/152429/AAR214.kmz
Google earth doesn't have an MSL setting for the altitude of the makers so they aren't 100% accurate relative to the map.

Save as .kml instead of .kmz, then edit the file in a text editor. Replace >relativeToGround< with >absolute<.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 07, 2013, 06:45:55 PM
The first "go around" is heard in the "short" mp3 at the beginning of this thread. It's short, has a background tone and def not the tower controller. It's just before the controller's "emergency vehicle" transmissions.
It's not as loud as the controller's transmissions and, if it's not Asiana 214 (which was our guess), it sounds like another plane transmitting in the blind, maybe to Asiana 214 or another plane. Or another plane on final announcing that they were going to "go around".
If the "short" mp3 is only the tower, then the only planes on tower freq are inbound for landing, outbound just after takeoff or those cleared for takeoff or holding short, waiting for takeoff.

Good tip about KMZ and KML files.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: justapilot on July 07, 2013, 07:05:06 PM

We pretty much thought that that stepped on "go around!" transmission was from the Asiana 214 pilot.
...

Thanks for this perspective, but it just confuses the hell out of me. I don't hear anyone call go around until well after the crash. It doesn't make sense, why would one of the Asiana pilots call go around to another aircraft on frequency, when they should be busy with their evacuation checklist?
...

I agree the first "go around" call at 0:46 is probably the Asiana pilot, who in this event would be self-declaring his intention to 'go around' to the tower (i.e. it's not a command to another aircraft) just prior to the crash.

After listening to both this and the "real-time" tape, I amend my comments.  There is a voice in the background at 0:41 on this track that appears at 3:58 in the real-time track saying something to the effect of "dunno what happened over there".  I assume that means the crash has already occurred.  Not sure who then is calling "go around" at 0:46, but it seems too clearly spoken to be the Asiana pilot.  It could be Skywest 6389 as it would make some sense that the tower would come back with heading and altitude instructions for the go around.

Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 07, 2013, 07:28:53 PM
That short clip has been edited, it has had the long silences removed. You are right, I can now hear two sides of a conversation going on while Skyhawk 737 is stepping on them both, so to my ear probably the controller first, then Skywest 6389 reading back. I think I can just about make out the callsign Skywest 6389 on the end of it. But in the original archived feed, this happens a full ten seconds after someone in the tower shouts "what happened over there?"
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: ryannayr140 on July 07, 2013, 07:52:33 PM
I thought it was tower that said "Go around" because it sounded more like a command rather than an announcement, but after listening to it again the remnants of a call sign after the "go around" call make it seem like a pilot was speaking and not the controller. 
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: sykocus on July 07, 2013, 07:58:46 PM
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/152429/AAR214.kmz
Google earth doesn't have an MSL setting for the altitude of the makers so they aren't 100% accurate relative to the map.

Save as .kml instead of .kmz, then edit the file in a text editor. Replace >relativeToGround< with >absolute<.
I did see that setting but wasn't sure what they measure absolute "from" so I used "relative to ground since most of the plots are over the water anyway.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 07, 2013, 08:23:26 PM
I thought it was tower that said "Go around" because it sounded more like a command rather than an announcement, but after listening to it again the remnants of a call sign after the "go around" call make it seem like a pilot was speaking and not the controller.  

When a pilot says "go around" or going around" it is an informational statement for the controller and other aircraft.
It can sound relaxed to intense, depending of what's going on.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 07, 2013, 09:01:34 PM
A go around is not an emergency and does not get you priority.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 07, 2013, 09:08:28 PM
You are right - What was I thinking? A "go around" is not usually an emergency.

I was thinking "go around" and declaring an emergency together.

And I should have kept the "emergency" example more separated.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: svoynick on July 07, 2013, 09:17:37 PM
In light - when a pilot says "going around" it IS a command. If I say "going around", the controller's primary job is now working for my passengers, me and my airplane.
I can take a C-150 Cessna, declare an emergency and shut down JFK if in my opinion, JFK is the safest place for me to land.
There might be some questions asked later, but every pilot has that authority.
Agreed.  {Edited to add:  I completely agree with oktalist's subsequent point separating the concept of go-around and declaration of emergency.}

Another interesting thing: the headline on the CNN site says

NTSB: Pilots asked to do a 'go-around' 1.5 seconds before impact

No, the NTSB didn't say that.  The quote from the NTSB's Deborah Hersman says that they "called to initiate go-around", but this was in a section of the press conference where she was referring to CVR and FDR information.  So we all know that when she says they "called to initiate," she's probably referring to a pilot ordering it for the cockpit crew to carry it out.  But CNN turned that into a headline that makes it sound like they made a request, as if to ATC.  

And if that's not convincing enough, a paragraph farther down in the story says:

For example, she said, the increase of power in the engines appears to correlate with the cockpit crew's request to "go-around," a call to abort the landing and try it again.

Note, Hersman didn't call it a "request" to go-around, that's CNN's interpretation, and now also probably most readers' understanding of how things happened.  I hope people don't end up thinking "Gee, if ATC had only approved that request right away, they might have been OK..."  It very much skews one's understanding of the situation.

I'm not so naive that I'm shocked when the press gets technical details wrong (I'm an engineer, and I see science and engineering issues mangled all the time...) but it's still unfortunate.  The CNN story seems to be generating around a thousand comments per hour, so I'm not inclined to wade into that typically chaotic fray and get dragged into discussions of conspiracies, political parties, and the like.  

Just thought I'd vent with folks who would understand.

Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: hburg on July 07, 2013, 10:58:04 PM
Is it true that the pilot landing the plane was in training and that it was his first landing a 777? If so, feel bad for the guy and of course all those involved. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/us-asiana-korea-idUSBRE96701620130708
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: denverpilot on July 08, 2013, 12:09:58 AM
First landing at SFO. Not first landing. And everyone lands them in the simulator numerous times in worse conditions before doing the real thing.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: ATCzero on July 08, 2013, 12:44:30 AM
higher quality crash video.

http://youtu.be/lBi8zR44OsU


At first I thought it was the controller saying "go around", but listening again, I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: Eric M on July 08, 2013, 12:51:31 AM
Here's more on the status of the pilot flying, from the San Jose Mercury-News:

Asiana Airlines President Yoon Young-doo apologized to victims and their families, and defended the South Korean pilots as "skilled" veterans. But a spokeswoman for the airlines said later that while pilot Lee Kang-kook had nearly 10,000 hours of flying experience, he only had 43 hours with the Boeing 777, still was in training for the long-range plane and was making his first flight into SFO on that aircraft.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: sykocus on July 08, 2013, 03:13:37 AM
It looks like they were lucky not have rolled overed over after impact.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: saper on July 08, 2013, 06:50:38 AM
Hi,

I have posted the (short) clip to Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AAR214-KSFO-Crash.ogg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AAR214-KSFO-Crash.ogg)) as well as the transcript based on  the ryannayr140 post earlier in this thread (http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/asiana-214-crash-at-ksfo/msg58663/#msg58663). This way they can be edited and improved by everyone , by editing subtitle page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/TimedText:AAR214-KSFO-Crash.ogg.en.srt) (I have used http://universalsubtitles.org (http://universalsubtitles.org)).

I tried to get all the attributions right, let me know if I can improve,

--saper
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: dljone3 on July 08, 2013, 11:09:04 AM
That must must have been a pretty frightening view for the United heavy holding short of 28L.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 08, 2013, 02:02:53 PM
First responders press briefing live: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/live-video/

Expecting another NTSB briefing shortly.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 08, 2013, 04:24:19 PM
That NTSB briefing happened and is now available at http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Briefing-on-Asiana-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372-1/
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: oktalist on July 09, 2013, 07:56:11 PM
http://www.c-span.org/Events/NTSB-Briefing-on-Asiana-Airline-Plane-Crash/10737440372-3/
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: mielsonwheals on July 11, 2013, 04:06:53 PM


Another interesting thing: the headline on the CNN site says

NTSB: Pilots asked to do a 'go-around' 1.5 seconds before impact

No, the NTSB didn't say that.  The quote from the NTSB's Deborah Hersman says that they "called to initiate go-around", but this was in a section of the press conference where she was referring to CVR and FDR information.  So we all know that when she says they "called to initiate," she's probably referring to a pilot ordering it for the cockpit crew to carry it out.  But CNN turned that into a headline that makes it sound like they made a request, as if to ATC.  

And if that's not convincing enough, a paragraph farther down in the story says:

For example, she said, the increase of power in the engines appears to correlate with the cockpit crew's request to "go-around," a call to abort the landing and try it again.

Note, Hersman didn't call it a "request" to go-around, that's CNN's interpretation, and now also probably most readers' understanding of how things happened.  I hope people don't end up thinking "Gee, if ATC had only approved that request right away, they might have been OK..."  It very much skews one's understanding of the situation.

I'm not so naive that I'm shocked when the press gets technical details wrong (I'm an engineer, and I see science and engineering issues mangled all the time...) but it's still unfortunate.  The CNN story seems to be generating around a thousand comments per hour, so I'm not inclined to wade into that typically chaotic fray and get dragged into discussions of conspiracies, political parties, and the like.  

Just thought I'd vent with folks who would understand.



I saw that too and it made me cringe a bit, especially after listening to the audio. They definitely didn't request a go around to the tower, just to each other in the cockpit, obviously way too late. Big difference. I tweeted at CNN but, can you believe it, they didn't change the headline.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: 757-rules on July 12, 2013, 02:37:55 PM
Is it just me, or is it different with 3 people in the cockpit? Turkish at EHAM had a training captain, Asiana also (from AVHerald) is there more pressure on the pilots?

[Edit]
I also tried to imagine how things go when you do something the first time.

It appears the pilot was on his first landing in a 777 at SFO, which can be explaned as someone who is too focused on steering the airplane (frenetic) so he had (in his head) no time to check the other instruments, the way you would be able to when you have done something a couple of times (more relaxed flying)
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: marc99 on July 12, 2013, 02:46:39 PM
What's missing is a simulation with time synched radio transmissions.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: InterpreDemon on July 12, 2013, 04:35:50 PM
First landing? Nonsense. This was a classic example of the difference between the performance of real pilots and that of modern day "flight managers" who for some inexplicable reason are always trying to insulate themselves from direct control of the flight path by utilizing as much technology as possible at all times. They will fly the approach to touchdown on autopilot, and if there is a runway incursion on short final they will be found spinning heading and altitude hold knobs instead of grabbing the yoke and throttles. There is an excellent discussion of this including an excellent video on this other LiveATC thread:

http://www.liveatc.net/forums/aviation-incidents/crash-at-sfo/30/

One of my modest contributions to the fracas:

"Oktalist, even at 500' I doubt he "suddenly" saw three red and that in the minutes prior to that point he had been stabilized on the GS. Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count. It ain't like cracking the throttle on that IO-540 in front of you and getting instant torque. That's why turbine pilots must always be well ahead of the equipment if they are to be able to stabilize the flight path, and generally flight energy decisions and adjustments have to be made at least ten seconds in advance."

"You see, that's why I know this is all BS.... that plane was not stabilized on the glide path with everything hanging out because if it was the engines would have been already cranking at a good clip. No, the engines were probably at idle because he was porpoising the GS... indeed perhaps due to fixation on the PAPI ("chasing the needles") or maybe he was looking at something else. The two things he was definitely not looking at were airspeed and power. When the report is released the FDR and CVR will tell us "the rrrrrrrrrrrrest of the story", and it will not be pretty. I had to laugh when Asiana announced that they had grounded their 777 fleet for inspection, when they really should have grounded their pilot roster for re-examination."
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: ryannayr140 on July 12, 2013, 07:22:07 PM
Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count.

I'm not a real pilot, I only fly on a simulator.  I never use the auto-throttle on final because when I see three reds and pull up a bit I like to add power before the inevitable loss of speed, then adjust the throttles again moments later to stabilize the speed.  The auto-throttle does not know that you're going to pull up the stick until you do it.   On the other hand, I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes. 
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: martyj19 on July 12, 2013, 10:15:24 PM
Why anybody would be flying on auto-throttle as late as short final escapes me since there are any number of things that can occur that would require an immediate response not possible with the autopilot (like discovering after you were gawking at the topless sailorette that you were far too low and slow) and yes, when the engines are at or close to flight idle that spool-up takes an eternity in an environment where seconds count.

I'm not a real pilot, I only fly on a simulator.  I never use the auto-throttle on final because when I see three reds and pull up a bit I like to add power before the inevitable loss of speed, then adjust the throttles again moments later to stabilize the speed.  The auto-throttle does not know that you're going to pull up the stick until you do it.   On the other hand, I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes. 

(There's some discussion on this but) pitch controls airspeed, power controls rate of climb or descent.  If you are on airspeed, and you are low, the normal correction would be to add a little bit of power with no pitch change and fly level until you are back on glidepath.  I encourage you to take an intro flight where you spend an hour or two in a real airplane trying out how it reacts in real situations.

In this case they were both low and far below airspeed and the engines were at flight idle until a few seconds before the tail struck the seawall well short of the threshold.  InterpreDemon has it nailed.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: Eric M on July 12, 2013, 10:20:10 PM
If you'll pardon this slight course deviation, an (now-former?) NTSB intern today 'confirmed' the names of the four Asiana captains involved. Only trouble was that he was joking, but KTVU (Fox affiliate in San Francisco) didn't quite catch that before their noon newscast today. Major retractions ensued. Must see the included YouTube clip to fully appreciate.

http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/12/1937/
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: flyflyfly on July 13, 2013, 07:00:52 AM
http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/07/12/1937/

OMG!! No way did they broadcast this for real?  :-o
All involved lacked even basic common sense. No surprise they're blaming it on their "interns" now...
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: InterpreDemon on July 13, 2013, 12:21:22 PM
"I do think autopilot technology has helped reduce the number of plane crashes."

Ryan - What I find very disturbing over many years of experience and observation, is the number of accidents that have been instigated or facilitated by the inappropriate use of autopilot functionality. For example, aircraft that plunged to the ground needlessly in Indiana and Buffalo thanks to pilots remaining on autopilot in icing conditions and chatting away as the airframe got loaded up to the point where the AP disengaged and handed the clueless pilots an un-flyable machine. Even if a pilot is unaware of icing he will soon become aware that something is wrong if hand flying because he will detect and/or note the changes in trim or need for additional power, etc. Flight 401 went down in the Everglades because the entire cockpit crew was obsessed with a gear indicator light and nobody was in charge of flying the plane, so nobody noticed when a bump on the yoke by the captain disengaged the AP and they gradually flew down into the swamp.

I could go on and on with endless examples and, just like the single vs twin debate, somebody could cite the accidents that never happened due to the extra engine or give anecdotal stories about the pilot who but for the autopilot would have crashed after falling asleep, however thanks to being on autopilot when the engine started sputtering it woke him up and he was able to skillfully and expertly perform a dead-stick, off-airport landing. Wow! What a pilot!

I have my own rule for autopilot use, and that is to disengage and fly manually whenever more than one flight path parameter needs to be changed. For example, a change in heading during cruise... no problem. Change in heading and altitude and/or airspeed? I'm doing that myself because, frankly, I can do it better or sequence things optimally in a way that is far more difficult to do by telling the autopilot what to do, waiting to see what it does and then providing any required feedback. I also find that when I am "flying" the plane I am more engaged with the world outside the cockpit and have better overall situational awareness... I feel like I am part of the machine and it actually reduces my workload because in a high-load environment like flying into New York in IMC I find the flying part of the job (including the scan) is like riding a bike. It's hard to explain, but for me it's just easier to be firing on all cylinders than to be figuring out which ones I might not need at the moment.
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: cptbrw on July 14, 2013, 07:34:36 AM
Found the following animation video.  It's not an NTSB animation but is interesting nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: Asiana 214 Crash at KSFO
Post by: joeyb747 on July 15, 2013, 08:57:14 AM
Pretty intense animation... :-o

Found the following animation video.  It's not an NTSB animation but is interesting nonetheless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhoAfgYhhs0&feature=player_embedded)