airtraffic

Author Topic: Crash @ SFO  (Read 129342 times)

Offline RonR

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2013, 09:18:16 AM »

Offline Squawk 7700

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
    • Squawk 7700 on Flickr
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2013, 10:45:00 AM »
Thanks Ron!

Offline InterpreDemon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2013, 01:23:13 PM »
As I said back in July http://www.liveatc.net/forums/aviation-incidents/crash-at-sfo/msg58792/#msg58792 the pilot was clearly not paying attention to airspeed or power, probably porpoised the G/S and the report would not be pretty. The only thing I was wrong about was the topless girl on the sailboat.

Three minutes before impact, just as they are putting the gear down, there is discussion that they "seem too high" and the PIC says "I will descend more", then a minute and a half later they increase flaps from five to thirty and about half a minute later, 52 seconds before impact, somebody in the cockpit was warning about the sink rate. Thirty seconds before impact somebody said they were on glide path, then ten seconds later somebody said they were low, meaning they flew right through it. Now we know that the morons (I am now pluralizing it because there were three of them) were flying on auto-throttle, and anybody who was making all those configuration changes on short final while diving back onto the G/S without instinctively having his hands on the throttles had to have been been away from manual flying for a very long time. These guys could never have performed a circling visual approach or having their base called into a short final, or any flight regime requiring "seat of the pants" flying, including landed a 172. From that article, "Boeing's chief of flight deck engineering, Bob Myers, testified that the company designed the automated system to aid — not replace — the pilot. If there's a surprise, he said, 'we expect them to back off on the automation' and rely on their basic skills." Amen.

I had summed up that post saying that rather than grounding their 777 fleet Asiana should have grounded their pilot roster, a viewpoint that an attorney involved shares: "This pilot should never have taken off," said attorney Ilyas Akbari, whose firm represents 14 of the passengers. "The fact that the pilot was stressed and nervous is a testament to the inadequate training he received, and those responsible for his training and for certifying his competency bear some of the culpability."

Of course mine is just an opinion based upon few facts, a number of assumptions and much experience, so we all await the final NTSB report.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2013, 01:43:28 PM by InterpreDemon »

Offline Flyingnut

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2013, 06:38:41 PM »
... Now we know that the morons (I am now pluralizing it because there were three of them) were flying on auto-throttle, ...

According to this article, http://t.co/FhxGJsXdEE "Contributing to the crash, the auto-throttle was disengaged inadvertently and set to idle."

Offline InterpreDemon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 514
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2013, 07:21:49 PM »
It is more likely that the auto throttle disengaged because the flight path was out of limits, especially since in the final minute I saw no mention of power settings or airspeed, or it was still engaged but at idle because they were diving through the glide slope. Whether it was engaged or not is somewhat immaterial because they believed and behaved as if it was, and that was their primary mistake. The FDR will confirm all this stuff.

Even in the unlikely event I had been on short approach believing the auto throttle to be engaged, I still would have had my hand on the throttles. The only way I might not would be if it were zero-zero and I was relying completely upon CAT III auto-land... and even then I would be on the throttles in case something scary suddenly filled the windscreen.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 12:02:44 PM by InterpreDemon »

Offline RonR

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2013, 10:19:19 AM »

Offline 1053857

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Crash @ SFO
« Reply #56 on: December 14, 2013, 06:52:51 AM »
Very well said InterpreDemon