Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[jamhar]

...

...

Asiana Airlines has hired aviation law firm Condon & Forsyth LLP. I think Asiana has insurance coverage up to $2.5 B.

Asiana seems to be attempting to shift blame, with some public statements, from itself, its employees, et al., to the aircraft itself: engines and other systems.

I agree with you. AA looks like they have shifted into damage control. its business.

So the investigators findings will have a huge implications to Boeing, and AA. Much scrutiny can be expected.

Lots of articles, and news releases by both parties can be expected.

On different subject,

Looks like the investigators are looking into the matter of teaming a realitively new student to the aircraft, with a realitively new instructor pilot to the aircraft.

On a personal matter, Whenever I fly, when theres a particually rough landing,

I normally turn to my neighbor seat and wisper "co-pilot landing", smile and shrug.

I wont be doing that any more.

Investigators look into pairing of Asiana pilots

In the left seat of the cockpit sat Lee Gang-kuk, a 46-year-old pilot with just 35 hours of experience flying a Boeing 777 who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco International Airport. At his right was Lee Jeong-Min, a trainer making his first trip as an instructor pilot.

Link - investigators-look-pairing-asiana-pilots

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Now here is an interesting dynamic - the instructor has less total flying hours than the new 777 pilot. Sounds like a "pi" / "nong" type situation where "nong" is the instructor.

Maybe instructor did not dare to speak up ?

I don't believe that's correct. From what I recall of the NTSB briefing the other day, the instructor pilot had more total hours...

From my previously posted summary's of Tuesday's NTSB briefing:

--The flying pilot said he had about 9700 hours of total flight time, including about 5000 hours as pilot in command in various types of aircraft. But he was undergoing his training in the 777 type aircraft with Asiana. To complete his training in the 777 with Asiana, he was required to have 20 flights and 60 flight hours. In the 777, he had completed 10 legs and about 35 hours flying the 777. "So he was about halfway through his initial operating experience on the Triple 7."

--The instructor pilot, also a captain, said he had total flight time of 13,000 hours, and total hours of about 3000 in the 777. His total pilot in command time was about 10,000 hours. But he said this was his first trip as an instructor pilot. "The instructor pilot stated that he was the pilot in command. He was sitting in the right seat. This was the first time that he and the flying pilot that he was instructing had flown together," Hersman said.

Edited July 11, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Looks like the investigators are looking into the matter of teaming a realitively new student to the aircraft, with a realitively new instructor pilot to the aircraft.

..................................

Investigators look into pairing of Asiana pilots

In the left seat of the cockpit sat Lee Gang-kuk, a 46-year-old pilot with just 35 hours of experience flying a Boeing 777 who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco International Airport. At his right was Lee Jeong-Min, a trainer making his first trip as an instructor pilot.

Link - investigators-look-pairing-asiana-pilots

The AP article you're linking to includes comments from the NTSB's Hersman, presumably from Wednesday's media briefing:

Hersman said Wednesday the pilot trainee told investigators he was blinded by a light at about 500 feet, which would have been 34 seconds before impact and the point at which the airliner began to slow and drop precipitously. She said lasers have not been ruled out. It was unclear, however, whether the flash might have played a role in the crash.

Hersman also said that a third pilot in the jump seat of the cockpit told investigators he was warning them their speed was too slow as they approached the runway.

This latter item re warnings from the reserve first officer appears to fit in with the supposed news report from the Korean newspaper that was posted above. But the AP article doesn't mention HOW LONG before impact the guy started warning.

Meanwhile, the article also included this comment re the pairing of the pilots:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology aeronautics professor Mary Cummings said it's common for two commercial pilots who have never worked together before to be assigned to the same flight.

But she said the military tries to have crews work together more permanently.

"Research would tell you that crew pairing with the same people over longer periods of time is safer," she said. "When two people fly together all the time, you get into a routine that's more efficient. You have experience communicating."

Jeff Skiles, a US Airways first officer, said that with the right training it should not matter if a pilot new to a plane is paired with a pilot making his first trip as a training captain.

[Tywais]

SF plane crash pilot briefly blinded by light

(07-10) 18:50 PDT San Francisco -- The Asiana Airlines pilot who was flying the jetliner that crashed at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday told investigators that a flash of light temporarily blinded him 34 seconds before impact, federal investigators said Wednesday.

The pilot, who was making his first approach into the airport in a Boeing 777, told South Korean and American investigators that as the jetliner descended to 500 feet in altitude, something flashed in his eyes, said Deborah Hersman, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board.

"We really don't know at this point what it could have been," Hersman said after a reporter at the news conference asked whether it could have been a laser. "We need to look into it. We need to understand what he's talking about. We may need to follow up with him."

Although the flash caused only what Hersman described as "a temporary issue," it occurred at about the same time the pilots realized the plane was flying too low and off center and began working to realign it with the runway. Within seconds, the plane lost significant speed and nearly stalled, striking the rocky seawall and crashing.

SFGate

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The AP report linked above also has more detail on the involvement of auto throttles, and has new info that THREE, not two, flight attendants were thrown from the plane and updates on the injured Thai flight attendants.

http://news.yahoo.com/investigators-look-pairing-asiana-pilots-201057826.html

Details emerging from Asiana pilot interviews, cockpit recorders and control-tower communications indicate that Lee Gang-kuk, who was halfway through his certification training for the Boeing 777, and his co-pilot and instructor, Lee Jeong-Min, thought the airliner's speed was being controlled by an autothrottle set for 157 mph.

Inspectors found that the autothrottle had been "armed," or made ready for activation, Hersman said. But investigators are still determining whether it had been engaged. In the last two minutes, there was a lot of use of autopilot and autothrusters, and investigators are going to look into whether pilots made the appropriate commands and if they knew what they were doing, she said.

A dozen survivors remained hospitalized Wednesday, half flight attendants, including three thrown from the airliner during the accident. One has been identified as 25-year-old Maneenat Tinnakul, whose father told the Thairath newspaper in Thailand she suffered a minor backache.

Another flight attendant, Sirithip Singhakarn, was reported in intensive care.

Edited July 11, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Tywais]

San Francisco Crash: Pilot Warnings 'Ignored'

The pilot's warnings could have prevented the plane crash that killed two passengers, according to reports.

4:12pm UK, Wednesday 10 July 2013

NTSB said the plane was flying far too slowly as it came in to land

One of the pilots of Asiana Flight 214 that crashed in San Francisco shouted warnings that were ignored, according to South Korean media.

Sources in the country's transport ministry confirmed Bong Dong Won - who was in the cockpit jump seat - repeatedly yelled "sink rate" in the final minute before the crash, it was reported.

If the sink rate - the rate of decrease in altitude - was checked when Mr Bong raised the alarm, it may have prevented the plane from hitting the seawall as it landed at San Francisco Airport, reports said.

Sky News

[Tywais]

Regarding previous questions on watching air speed, see last paragraph.

Asiana Flight 214 pilots say speed control failed during landing

SAN FRANCISCO -- The pilots aboard Asiana Airlines Flight 214 that crashed in San Francisco relied on automatic equipment to maintain airspeed and did not realize the plane was flying too slowly until it was just 200 feet above the ground, the head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said.

In her third detailed briefing on Saturday's crash that killed two Chinese passengers and injured more than 180 other people, NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman also said two flight attendants were ejected from the plane after its tail hit a seawall in front of the runway and was torn off. Both were found injured but alive on the side of the runway.

Hersman said many questions remained about the incident. The South Korean airline's flight crew members were not tested for drugs or alcohol after the crash, a requirement for pilots of U.S.-based carriers involved in accidents, she said.

The accounts given to investigators by the pilots, as relayed by Hersman, confirmed information from the plane's flight data recorder that showed the plane was traveling 25 percent below its target airspeed as it came in for landing.

While she has declined to speculate on the cause of the crash, much of the information released by the NTSB suggests pilot error as a main focus of the investigation.

<snip>

She noted that the pilots were responsible for maintaining airspeed.

"We have a flying pilot and two other pilots in the cockpit and they have a monitoring function," she said. "One of the critical things that needs to be monitored on an approach to landing is speed. So we need to understand what was going on in the cockpit and also what was going on with the aircraft."

Experts said even with auto-throttle active, the pilots should have been monitoring the plane's speed every few seconds, and could have manually taken control of the engines at any time.

"Whether it was engaged or not working is almost irrelevant," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot and an air safety consultant. "The big mystery of Flight 214 is why in God's name did these two pilots sit there and allow the air speed to get so low."

Chicago Tribune

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Hmm.... more fuel for the fire....

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — As soon as Asiana Flight 214 came to a stop after a crash landing that tore off the tail and sent the Boeing 777 spinning down the runway at San Francisco International Airport, the lead flight attendant asked pilots if she should begin evacuating passengers. The answer: No.

With dust swirling in the cabin, the hundreds on board stayed in their seats. It wasn't until 90 seconds later, when a flight attendant noticed fire on the outside of the plane, that emergency slides were deployed and passengers began streaming out of the plane.

Two of the plane's eight slides malfunctioned, however, opening inside the cabin and pinning two flight attendants underneath.

Meantime, the fire that started when fuel leaked onto a hot engine started spreading and flight attendants and the flight crew battled the flames as firefighters and rescuers arrived.

MORE:

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's the original Korean source of the first officer comments about warning they were too low.... This version has the first officer saying they were "under 1,000 feet" but doesn't say how much under... 900, 500 300?

http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2974388&cloc=joongangdaily|home|newslist1

Pilots’ memories of crash differ on details

July 11,2013

The pilots of Asiana Flight 214 are not on the same page in their recollections of what happened in its final moments before crashing, the JoongAng Ilbo has learned in San Francisco.

They vary widely as to the exact time when the pilot attempted a “go-around,” or aborting of the fatal landing, and one pilot’s warnings about the plane descending too steeply may have been ignored.

[snip]

The possibility that the pilots weren’t listening to each other in the cockpit was raised when the ministry spoke with Bong Dong-won, who was sitting behind the two Lees.

“I yelled at the pilots to check the plane’s sink rate as it was descending too steeply though it was already under 1,000 feet, but they didn’t respond,” Bong was quoted as saying by the ministry.

The ministry said the plane was at 1,000 feet 54 seconds before impact.

“That means there is a possibility that the pilots might had recognized that the circumstances related to the landing were wrong much earlier than it has been known,” the ministry said.

Media in China and the U.S. are speculating that Korea’s hierarchical social structure could be a contributing factor to why Bong, junior in rank to the two Lees landing the plane, may have been ignored.

Edited July 11, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's the video from YouTube of Wednesday's NTSB briefing:

[jpinx]

Says it all really -- very sad for everyone involved.

It only remains to find out if the auto throttle really had a malfunction, but even if it did, that does not exonerate the crew.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From Wednesday's NTSB briefing:

AUTOMATION - AUTO THROTTLES

Re many questions about automation, Hersman said pilots have a range of choices, from making the entire flight manually to making a fully automated landing even in zero visibility conditions.

"But there are two pilots in the cockpit for a reason. They're there to fly, to navigate, to communicate. And if they're using automation, a big key is to monitor and pilots are trained to monitor...."

Re the auto throttle system, "there are five discreet modes you can see in flight."

"Just understand the pilot sets what he wanted in different modes, but then there is a responsibility to monitor that he's getting what he asked for."

"With this flight, in the last two and a half minutes of the flight....we see multiple auto pilot modes and we see multiple auto throttle modes. We need to understand what those modes were, if they were commanded by the pilots, if they were activated inadvertently, and if the pilots understood what the mode was doing."

-------------------------------------

TWO FLIGHT ATTENDANTS PINNED BY TWO EMERGENCY SLIDES

Of the 12 flight attendants on the aircraft, NTSB has interviewed six, but not interviewed the six FA's who remain hospitalized. Hersman said two different flight attendants were pinned by two different emergency slides (1R and 2R) that activated inside the plane.

Hersman also said 3 flight attendants and their seats were ejected from the aircraft -- upping that from the prior briefing of two. But she added that none of the aircraft's passenger seats were ejected from the aircraft.

Hersman said authorities still don't know why the two slides activated inside the aircraft.

---------------------------------------------------------

AIRCRAFT EVACUATION BEGAN 90 SECONDS AFTER

After the plane came to a stop, a flight attendant went to the cockpit to ask about beginning an aircraft evacuation. "The flight crew told the flight attendant to not initiate an evacuation. They were communicating with the tower about the emergency. The cabin manager made an announcement over the PA for people to stay in their seats and to not evacuate."

But then, another flight attendant spotted a fire outside of the plane, and another flight attendant went to the front of the cabin to alert the pilots, and then the evacuation began. "A minute and a half after the aircraft came to a stop, and this is based on video evidence," aircraft doors were opened and slides were deployed.

"About two minutes after the crash, the first emergency response vehicle arrived on scene. And approximately three minutes after the crash, the first extinguishing agent was started to apply to the aircraft on the right side."

"We don't know what the pilots were thinking. But I can tell you in previous accidents, there have been crews that don't evacuate, they wait for other vehicles to come to be able to get the passengers out safely."

"The pilots are in the front of the airplane. They really don't have a good sense of what's going on behind them. They need to get that information from the flight attendants. But we certainly will be looking into that issue. Hindsight is 20-20... We need to understand what they were thinking, what information they had."

----------------------------------------------------

FLASH OF LIGHT

Responding to a reporter's question, Hersman said "The flying pilot has stated to Korean authorities that there was a flash of light temporarily at 500 feet that temporarily blinded him. Our investigators did interview the flying pilot, and he did relay some of that information to our investigators. We need to understand exactly what that is, identify if there were any sources of light.... But it was a temporary issue."

-----------------------------------------------------

FIRST OFFICER STATEMENT:

Hersman was asked about reports that the reserve first officer had called out a warning 54 second prior to the crash. She answered that she didn't have any information about a warning 54 seconds prior to the crash, but that the reserve first officer had stated that he had called out a warning about "sink rate" at some point when the plane was descending too quickly. She also said the pilots were communicating in the cockpit, talking to each other further out when their approach was too high and later closer in when their approach was too low.

Edited July 11, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's a trio of slides the NTSB showed Wednesday detailing the approach route and contact times for the Asiana flight, as well as a fourth slide giving details on the plane's exit door locations and designations.

[khaosai]

Hi,

There is an bulletin in circulation highlighting some failures that could cause some potential issues whilst landing. Not sure if its a factor in this accident but it's something the investigators will be looking at as a potential cause.

The aircraft has 3 radio altimeters fitted. When one or more produce erroneous altitude indications there can be some additional effects and conflicting information on the aircraft instrumentation.

No auto throttle wake up protection available which could have been an issue here.

False or missing ground proximity warnings.

Erroneous radio altitude on either primary flight display.

Airspeed errors.

Auto throttle retard.

Auto throttle disconnect and inability to re engage in speed mode.

Engines in ground idle rather than approach idle thus increased acceleration times in the event of a go around.

The recommendation, whether flying manually or with automation is to monitor the primary flight instruments, namely speed and altitude and the flight mode annunciations and to keep one hand on the thrust levers even with the auto throttle engaged.

Certainly food for thought but not one I have heard mentioned so far thus probably been discounted.

Edited July 11, 2013 by khaosai

[Loptr]

Now the pilot in command is claiming he was "blinded by the light". Just what the hell does that mean?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

This guy's career is finished. He will be lucky to get a job flying banners over the beach.

[GentlemanJim]

Now the pilot in command is claiming he was "blinded by the light". Just what the hell does that mean?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

This guy's career is finished. He will be lucky to get a job flying banners over the beach.

It may mean he realises the gravity of what has occurred and he is trying to reduce his culpability in the incident. Of course the first question the investigators will say is "if your sight was suddenly impaired why did you not alert the rest of the crew immediately and hand over control for the landing to the other pilot" (all of which would be recorded on the cockpit voice recorders.

[Credo]

Now the pilot in command is claiming he was "blinded by the light". Just what the hell does that mean?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/asiana-flight-214-ntsb-pilot-blinded/2507059/

This guy's career is finished. He will be lucky to get a job flying banners over the beach.

I doubt it was the light from his bright future.

[Mosha]

This what a friend who flies 747 freighters for Cathay Pacific said.

"If you talk to former AAR and KAL pilots, you might not fly on these carriers again. Flew with one that had 6 months in KAL and he described the local crews as heavily reliant on autopilot / autoland. They would always refuse sectors offered, and when he would insist, they would turn the AP on at min engagement height and use the autoland to get it on the ground. As a pilot, I am dumbfounded by this. The only times we do AL is during LVO/LVP, special emergencies (ie, pilot incapacitated), or training/testing. I can't say I personally know any pilots that prefer to give the landing to the autopilot, kind of like a Chef that tells you he doesn't like to cook and prefers to use the microwave to prepare his dinner."

[Loptr]

This what a friend who flies 747 freighters for Cathay Pacific said.

"If you talk to former AAR and KAL pilots, you might not fly on these carriers again. Flew with one that had 6 months in KAL and he described the local crews as heavily reliant on autopilot / autoland. They would always refuse sectors offered, and when he would insist, they would turn the AP on at min engagement height and use the autoland to get it on the ground. As a pilot, I am dumbfounded by this. The only times we do AL is during LVO/LVP, special emergencies (ie, pilot incapacitated), or training/testing. I can't say I personally know any pilots that prefer to give the landing to the autopilot, kind of like a Chef that tells you he doesn't like to cook and prefers to use the microwave to prepare his dinner."

I have to agree with this observation. I prefer to be hands on during an approach, even to minimum visibility / ceiling. Something about letting the "man in the box" do something that means my arse if something goes wrong, literally.

On another note and not meaning to sound racist, but I work with Koreans on a regular basis at the DSME shipyards in Korea. They are not the most receptive people when it comes to correcting them on an issue. Sometimes ego can get the best of a person.

[jpinx]

This what a friend who flies 747 freighters for Cathay Pacific said.

"If you talk to former AAR and KAL pilots, you might not fly on these carriers again. Flew with one that had 6 months in KAL and he described the local crews as heavily reliant on autopilot / autoland. They would always refuse sectors offered, and when he would insist, they would turn the AP on at min engagement height and use the autoland to get it on the ground. As a pilot, I am dumbfounded by this. The only times we do AL is during LVO/LVP, special emergencies (ie, pilot incapacitated), or training/testing. I can't say I personally know any pilots that prefer to give the landing to the autopilot, kind of like a Chef that tells you he doesn't like to cook and prefers to use the microwave to prepare his dinner."

I have to agree with this observation. I prefer to be hands on during an approach, even to minimum visibility / ceiling. Something about letting the "man in the box" do something that means my arse if something goes wrong, literally.

On another note and not meaning to sound racist, but I work with Koreans on a regular basis at the DSME shipyards in Korea. They are not the most receptive people when it comes to correcting them on an issue. Sometimes ego can get the best of a person.

exactly -- but not only the Koreans ......

[Mosha]

I'll have to ask my pilot friends this. However just as for aircraft certification, auto land is done on each aircraft 1x per month. Surely a similar restriction is there for manual landings?.

[khaosai]

I'll have to ask my pilot friends this. However just as for aircraft certification, auto land is done on each aircraft 1x per month. Surely a similar restriction is there for manual landings?.

Hi Mosha,

There is generally no requirement for the actual aircraft to carry out an auto land each month. The aircraft, assuming serviceable, will able to complete am automatic landing and rollout when required. If any of the components required to complete an auto land are inoperative then it will annotated in the tech log for crew awareness.

Crew recency regarding auto lands are generally maintained in the simulator every 6 months. Each pilot will generally be required to carry out one take off and manual landing on the aircaft or simulator within a period not exceeding 35 days and three within 90 days to remain current. This can be extended to 120 days if flown with an instructor.

Pilots also have to maintain route and aerodrome competency.

I stated generally as each individual airline may have some slight differences to the above.

The automation discussion will continue to do the rounds long after we are all gone. There is most definitely a place in modern aviation for it. Equally i feel it's imperative for a pilot to be able to demonstrate a high level of manual handling when so required. The systems now are so good that automation complacency has most definitely crept in to the industry. You need to choose an appropriate environment when deciding to hand fly a departure or arrival as the workload for the pilot monitoring does tend to increase. My view on it is if all factors are favourable on that particular day to hand fly then fill your boots !

Edited July 11, 2013 by khaosai

[Mosha]

It amazes me how many guys with links to the industry. Pilots, ATC etc, also fly M$ sims as an hobby. 3 of them in my group even produce excellent AI airceaft paints on stp[ pvers lol. All the pilots say basically the same thing. If you let the computer/auto do everything. You may as well fly a desk 9-5.

[F430murci]

It amazes me how many guys with links to the industry. Pilots, ATC etc, also fly M$ sims as an hobby. 3 of them in my group even produce excellent AI airceaft paints on stp[ pvers lol. All the pilots say basically the same thing. If you let the computer/auto do everything. You may as well fly a desk 9-5.

My whole family was or is pilots and in the industry. Lowell Swenson was great uncle and he and my cousins, Phil and Rob, started Valuejet ala AirTran and Messaba aka Nortwest Airlink. I was like the only male in family to get a real job . . .

Pilots are weird. That's all they frickin talk about. My father used to go through emergency procedures while nodding off in living room.

Anyway, I have always been obsessed with crashes and causes of crashes. Dad used to throw some crazy stuff at me besides basics like losing one or more engine on takeoff, hydraulics and etc, including Flight 191 scenario in DC 10 sim, trucks pulling out on runway or whatever he could think off to make me crash.

Crashing simulator gets heart going pretty good and those thing can jolt the hell out of you when the bottom out on jacks. Most of the time he would hit stop button right before, but a few times he did not . . .

[JLCrab]

To F430murci -- My Father was a US Navy Air fighter squadron leader doing carrier operations during WWII. After the war, he never flew again and never wanted to talk about it.

[jpinx]

This accident brings up the whole man-vs-machine discussion and is something that has to be addressed before rapidly developing technology takes over by default.

Anyone who thinks it won't happen needs to get their heads out of the sand and look to the skies....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22511395

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23276968

Would you get into a driver-less train, even a subway train -- let alone an aircraft?

This accident is symptomatic of the failures of the human/automaton interface.

[jamhar]

No sign autopilot, auto-throttles failed in San Francisco crash

Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 is engulfed in smoke on the tarmac after a crash landing at San Francisco …

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - There is no sign of failure of the autopilot or other key automatic flight equipment on the Asiana plane that crashed in San Francisco last week, National Transportation Safety Board Chair Deborah Hersman said on Thursday.

"There is no anomalous behavior of the autopilot, of the flight director, and of the auto-throttles, based on the FDR data reviewed to date," Hersman told a news conference, referring to the flight data recorder from the Boeing 777 which crashed on Saturday, killing two.

Link-no-sign-autopilot-auto-throttles-failed-story

Edited July 12, 2013 by jamhar

[F430murci]

To F430murci -- My Father was a US Navy Air fighter squadron leader doing carrier operations during WWII. After the war, he never flew again and never wanted to talk about it.

Hats off to people like your father. Cannot imagine how stressful to be flying a plane to its limits while being shot at.

[F430murci]

This accident brings up the whole man-vs-machine discussion and is something that has to be addressed before rapidly developing technology takes over by default.

Anyone who thinks it won't happen needs to get their heads out of the sand and look to the skies....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22511395

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/23276968

Would you get into a driver-less train, even a subway train -- let alone an aircraft?

This accident is symptomatic of the failures of the human/automaton interface.

Pilots have always and will continue to make mistakes in the future. Look at flight 401, knocked auto pilot off and gently descended into the Everglades.

I think safety has improved with technology. There will always be mishaps if a human is involved. I get pilots thinking they can fly out of anything, but the reality is even the best have occasional lapses.

Edited July 12, 2013 by F430murci

[IMA_FARANG]

I'm not a pilot in any way, shape, or form. I have been reading this topic and find it very interesting.

What I would like to know is IF for some reason the pilots had elected to go around earlier how long would the flight arrival be delayed due to that go around.?

If the pilots did chose a go around, would they have been severely criticized by the airline management later for any delay in arrival caused by their choice to go around?

What problems would a go around by the pilots based on an unsafe landing approach have caused for the airline?

At what point should an experienced pilot realize.....this landing is having problems and getting worse. .... I must abort this landing and go around for another landing attempt IRREGARDLESS of any criticism I will get from airline management for that go around?

In short, from those pilots posting here, at exactly what level and when should this landing approach have been abandoned and a go around started?

Just opinions from experienced pilots please on what you as a pilot would have done in a similar situation.