Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[jpinx]

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.

I suggest that the pilots should never consider anything but the safety of the aircraft. Airline management's reaction is not a consideration. I have gone-around for umpteen different reasons, but always in the interests of safety. The debriefing was always sympathetic, but then I had not made any elementary error like not monitoring the airspeed.

[NeverSure]

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.

Jpinx gave you the correct answers. I'll try to add some answers. The go around time/delay would depend on traffic. The plane, unless declaring an emergency due to something like low fuel or mechanical malfunction, would get back into line for landing. It might have to fly some distance away from the airport before it was cleared for approach and landing. If the airport wasn't busy, it would simply make, in layman's terms a circle of the airport and line up again for landing. This is all normal and not a problem considering that the alternative is a possible crash.

The go around would have caused no problems for the airline. It delays the landing a bit and burns some fuel, but the go around is the correct procedure.

The point at which that decision should be made would depend on how bad the situation was. If "everything" was out of whack at 3,000 feet they should go around. By everything I mean they are off the runway center line, too slow, too low, dropping, and generally screwed up, they should go to full power and fly around so they could start over with a fresh approach. If on the other hand things looked normal at 3,000 feet but at 500 feet things were going amiss, that's nearly their last chance to pour the coal to it and go around.

I have never heard of a pilot being criticized for initiating a go around. That is the proper and safe procedure when "things" don't look or feel right. You simply add full power, begin a climb, and radio the tower ("approach") that you are going around. Tower will give you instructions as to where to fly to, what turns to make and what altitude to use, and bring you back for landing when it's your turn.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's the YouTube video of the NTSB media briefing on Thursday, which is labeled as their last...for now.

[Chicog]

I have never heard of a pilot being criticized for initiating a go around.

I have. It was one of the reasons behind the loss of GF072.

[JetsetBkk]

This account of pilot training - or lack thereof - by an Asiana simulator instructor is pretty dämn worrying:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/on-crashes-and-pilot-training.php?ModPagespeed=noscript

[jamhar]

Interesting Article on why the autothrottle did or didnt do what the pilots expected.

Asiana 214 - Why the NTSB’s Focus On Autothrottles

"Each time the automation mode is changed there is the possibility that what the autothrottles will be trying to do will also be changed. It turns out that one of the things the autothrottles will do in certain modes is an automatic application of power to rescue the jet from a critically slow airspeed condition. It also turns out that here are also a number autothrottle functions that are influenced by the height of the aircraft above the ground - such as power reduction at 100 feet for touchdown during an automatic landing. But in a case where this is the desired function the logic of the automation cannot also be to add power rescue the aircraft from a slow condition when this is a natural and desired precursor to a landing. So in this case the programming of the autoland function establishes a logic in the automation that is different from other ways it would behave autoland is not programmed."

Link article on asiana214 autothrottle

[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.

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

Thank you. My Father said that, especially with the instrumentation available in those days, they lost more Navy pilots in carrier operations and fighter pilot maneuver training than they lost in combat.

[khaosai]

Hi IMA_FARANG,

there are some very good explanations to the questions you have asked. Here is my take on things too.

Any delay due to a go around will vary depending on many factors. These factors may include how busy the airport is, whether the controllers have radar available, what sort of weather is existing at the airport etc. it will also depend on the type of approach you have flow as some approaches have different missed approach procedures. I would plan on an additional 15 minutes and 2000 kg of fuel as an approximation. As stated by another poster if fuel management becomes an issue then you can expedite your approach by declaring a mayday call.

Airline management promote a fairly healthy safety culture so any subsequent delay will be of no major concern but may pose challenges if the airline operate the hub and spoke type arrangement where passengers have to make connecting flights. As a pilot that is way down the list of priorities and would not influence continuing an unstable approach.

Its important to note that go arounds are a normal manoeuvre which occur on a daily basis, occurring perhaps more often at certain airports than others for a multitude of reasons. The airline would not be punished for such a manoeuvre.

As mentioned in previous posts most airlines will have strict stabilisation criteria that must be met by a specific point on the approach. This is non negotiable and must result in a go around. Management would take a very dim view on any crew continuing such an approach. It's a huge threat to the industry and is totally unacceptable. You may find that the aircraft will destabilise after that point, again that must be mitigated by going around.

Lets start one hour before top of descent. A good briefing highlighting specific threats is a good starting place. Both crew members in the loop. Have some specific gates as you descend. These aircraft don't go down and slow down that well so you need to allow a lot of distance to manage the descent effectively. Lets say your cruising along at 35000 ft. You would need to start descent at approximately 120 miles from touchdown. its pretty simple arithmetic that most pilots will continue to do in their minds during descent to ensure the automation is providing them with good sound information. Speed management is also an important consideration so also requires planning. The B777 will take approximately 10 miles and 2 minutes to slow from 310 knots to 220 knots in level flight, more so whilst descending.

If its not working out then do something about it. Tell air traffic control your not happy and request extended track miles prior to landing. If they are not willing to accomodate your request then be assertive and tell them what you will do. Always rememeber who is in charge.

I don't know the Asiana stabilisation requirements but I would say this approach should have been discontinued at the latest 1000ft or if became unstable below that height then immediately.

It's ok for me to sit here typing in a relaxed environment, but on the day with lots of potential distractions who really knows what went on in that flight deck. Sad that people lost lives and I hope that lessons can be learned to further enhance what already is a pretty safe industry.

[Chicog]

Airline management promote a fairly healthy safety culture so any subsequent delay will be of no major concern

And once again, I refer you to GF072...

[khaosai]

Interesting Article on why the autothrottle did or didnt do what the pilots expected.

Asiana 214 - Why the NTSB’s Focus On Autothrottles

"Each time the automation mode is changed there is the possibility that what the autothrottles will be trying to do will also be changed. It turns out that one of the things the autothrottles will do in certain modes is an automatic application of power to rescue the jet from a critically slow airspeed condition. It also turns out that here are also a number autothrottle functions that are influenced by the height of the aircraft above the ground - such as power reduction at 100 feet for touchdown during an automatic landing. But in a case where this is the desired function the logic of the automation cannot also be to add power rescue the aircraft from a slow condition when this is a natural and desired precursor to a landing. So in this case the programming of the autoland function establishes a logic in the automation that is different from other ways it would behave autoland is not programmed."

Link article on asiana214 autothrottle

Hi,

Just to clear up some inconsistencies from above the auto throttle on this aircraft will go to idle between 25ft and 50 ft during an auto land. The aircraft flare manoeuvre begins at 50ft during an auto land which differs slightly from the recommended technique when landing manually where is states to flare between 20ft and 30ft. These figures are in the Boeing flight crew operating manual and is what is taught to pilots new to the aircraft.

[khaosai]

Airline management promote a fairly healthy safety culture so any subsequent delay will be of no major concern

And once again, I refer you to GF072...

Terrible accident which should have been avoided. I should stress my personal experience with airline management has been a good one when it comes to flight safety.

[F430murci]

Here is another incident that comes to mind about late application of power and spool up delay. The voice over is not exactly accurate about the cause. I seem to recall there being multiple issues such as altitude, pilots not expecting4 to 6 delay on spool up an alpha protection angle of attack automation. Not sure about all of this, but the this crash on video is somewhat like the 777 crash as far as late application of power.

[khaosai]

Hi,

I think it was some sort of demo or air show. Sends a chill through the spine watching that. I don't have any experience operating the airbus product but it's certainly very automated. The A380 can even do a traffic collision avoidance manoeuvre via the automation which is impressive.

Edited July 12, 2013 by khaosai

[jamhar]

Interesting Article on why the autothrottle did or didnt do what the pilots expected.

Asiana 214 - Why the NTSB’s Focus On Autothrottles

"Each time the automation mode is changed there is the possibility that what the autothrottles will be trying to do will also be changed. It turns out that one of the things the autothrottles will do in certain modes is an automatic application of power to rescue the jet from a critically slow airspeed condition. It also turns out that here are also a number autothrottle functions that are influenced by the height of the aircraft above the ground - such as power reduction at 100 feet for touchdown during an automatic landing. But in a case where this is the desired function the logic of the automation cannot also be to add power rescue the aircraft from a slow condition when this is a natural and desired precursor to a landing. So in this case the programming of the autoland function establishes a logic in the automation that is different from other ways it would behave autoland is not programmed."

Link article on asiana214 autothrottle

Hi,

Just to clear up some inconsistencies from above the auto throttle on this aircraft will go to idle between 25ft and 50 ft during an auto land. The aircraft flare manoeuvre begins at 50ft during an auto land which differs slightly from the recommended technique when landing manually where is states to flare between 20ft and 30ft. These figures are in the Boeing flight crew operating manual and is what is taught to pilots new to the aircraft.

Thanks Khaosai,

The plane was already too low and slow at 100ft altitude and 9 second before crash, so the conditions at 50ft is immaterial since around that time stall indicators were going off, no?

I thought the critical question, was "how could 2 trained pilots think autothrottle was going to maintain 137 when it didnt"? "And why on earth didnt they check airspeed, prior to landing?" and lastly How can 4 trained pilots not see on a clear day, that they were too low, too slow and approaching stall speed?"

I thought the run down, of the program-ability of the autothrottle, and the conditional nature of autothrottle, and lastly, the priority nature of autothrottle was very compelling. I could see how during landing, if you didnt understand the conditional priorities of the autothrottle settings that were selected, you could think it was doing one thing, but it was doing another.

Disclaimer, I'm in no way a pilot, just an engineer. But having written much code when needed, you really have to understand your priority and conditional statements to know how your software will perform in an unknown environment.

Edited July 12, 2013 by jamhar

[NeverSure]

Interesting Article on why the autothrottle did or didnt do what the pilots expected.

Asiana 214 - Why the NTSB’s Focus On Autothrottles

"Each time the automation mode is changed there is the possibility that what the autothrottles will be trying to do will also be changed. It turns out that one of the things the autothrottles will do in certain modes is an automatic application of power to rescue the jet from a critically slow airspeed condition. It also turns out that here are also a number autothrottle functions that are influenced by the height of the aircraft above the ground - such as power reduction at 100 feet for touchdown during an automatic landing. But in a case where this is the desired function the logic of the automation cannot also be to add power rescue the aircraft from a slow condition when this is a natural and desired precursor to a landing. So in this case the programming of the autoland function establishes a logic in the automation that is different from other ways it would behave autoland is not programmed."

Link article on asiana214 autothrottle

Hi,

Just to clear up some inconsistencies from above the auto throttle on this aircraft will go to idle between 25ft and 50 ft during an auto land. The aircraft flare manoeuvre begins at 50ft during an auto land which differs slightly from the recommended technique when landing manually where is states to flare between 20ft and 30ft. These figures are in the Boeing flight crew operating manual and is what is taught to pilots new to the aircraft.

Thanks Khaosai,

The plane was already too low and slow at 100ft altitude and 9 second before crash, so the conditions at 50ft is immaterial since around that time stall indicators were going off, no?

I thought the critical question, was "how could 2 trained pilots think autothrottle was going to maintain 137 when it didnt"? "And why on earth didnt they check airspeed, prior to landing?" and lastly How can 4 trained pilots not see on a clear day, that they were too low, too slow and approaching stall speed?"

I thought the run down, of the program-ability of the autothrottle, and the conditional nature of autothrottle, and lastly, the priority nature of autothrottle was very compelling. I could see how during landing, if you didnt understand the conditional priorities of the autothrottle settings that were selected, you could think it was doing one thing, but it was doing another.

Disclaimer, I'm in no way a pilot, just an engineer. But having written much code when needed, you really have to understand your priority and conditional statements to know how your software will perform in an unknown environment.

Very good. Agree 100%.

Please forgive me for putting part of your quote in bold. To me, if the final analysis is what is written in your whole post, then what I bolded will forever be the real question.

How in the hell could they not see, feel, and fix it?

[khaosai]

Hi,

Airspeed is definitely something that is required in the pilots scan. The NTSB will have the answers on what human factors on that particular day contributed to this accident.

Regarding the auto throttle logic, it will not provide stall protection when below 100ft. Certain engaged vertical modes will not provide stall protection when the auto throttle is in HOLD mode, i.e no auto throttle wake up. I am not sure when or if they got the stick shaker, but based on the speeds quoted its pretty likely they did.

If the auto throttle is in SPD mode it will correct for any change in speed, fast or slow. So lets say below 100ft on the approach you get a speed reduction the thrust will increase to counter act that change until between 25ft and 50ft where it goes to IDLE as part of the landing.

It could be that lack of technical knowledge was a contributory factor in all of this where the auto throttle modes were not fully understood.

Edited July 12, 2013 by khaosai

[skippybangkok]

Dunno - playing on 737 simulator, if using AT, the instructor always made me disenguage it at 500 ft AGL.

[EyesWideOpen]

This account of pilot training - or lack thereof - by an Asiana simulator instructor is pretty dämn worrying:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/on-crashes-and-pilot-training.php?ModPagespeed=noscript

A friend of mine did pilot training for KAL airlines. He said if you knew what happened in the cockpit,

you would never ever fly with them.....

[ravip]

I hope I am not duplicating this post - I thought I did it before, but seems not.

There seems to be many Aircraft experts here!

Are there any experts on Airports? Instead of all focusing on the pilots & the airline itself, should not the airport & it's services be scrutinized too?

For instance...

He said the systems, which provide critical information even on a day when the weather is ideal, had been turned off at SFO in the last two weeks.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/expert-runway-guidance-systems-sfo-disabled-article-1.1392294#ixzz2YtubJ29O

Also Friday, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr confirmed weeklong fears that a fire truck ran over one of the two 16-year-old girls who died after Asiana Airlines

Read more: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/07/12/news/16b6b320-9d7f-4701-912e-f29efac0e692.txt

Imagine this scenario in an 'undeveloped' country (I remember a power failure at an airport in TH initiated many bad analysis by some experts not only of the airport but about the whole country)

Just a-thinking...

[jpinx]

This account of pilot training - or lack thereof - by an Asiana simulator instructor is pretty dämn worrying:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/on-crashes-and-pilot-training.php?ModPagespeed=noscript

A friend of mine did pilot training for KAL airlines. He said if you knew what happened in the cockpit,

you would never ever fly with them.....

Not only KAL - I think you'd find the same problems in many other non-westernised countries where culture is stronger than command.

[jamhar]

Some more people needs to be fired.

"Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," the NTSB said.

On Friday, an anchor for Oakland, California, station KTVU read a list of the supposed names of the pilots of the South Korean carrier on its noon broadcast after an employee apparently called the NTSB seeking to verify them.

The names appear to mock the events of the crash. The prank names were: Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk and Bang Ding Ow.

[JetsetBkk]

Some more people needs to be fired.

"Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," the NTSB said.

On Friday, an anchor for Oakland, California, station KTVU read a list of the supposed names of the pilots of the South Korean carrier on its noon broadcast after an employee apparently called the NTSB seeking to verify them.

The names appear to mock the events of the crash. The prank names were: Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk and Bang Ding Ow.

How could someone read those names without realising they were made up? Incredible!

[jamhar]

Some more people needs to be fired.

"Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," the NTSB said.

On Friday, an anchor for Oakland, California, station KTVU read a list of the supposed names of the pilots of the South Korean carrier on its noon broadcast after an employee apparently called the NTSB seeking to verify them.

The names appear to mock the events of the crash. The prank names were: Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk and Bang Ding Ow.

How could someone read those names without realising they were made up? Incredible!

Agreed. The NTSB official needs to be fired or moved. If he is going to confirm the information, he needs to physically confirm the information.

And who ever created these names, I'm hoping some high schooler prank, should be ashamed of what they did. If an adult created it, they should be disciplined.

Unless it was done by someone like the writers for The Simpsons. I could actually see them doing it. Its still not right, but hey, its their job to make a mockery of reality.

[skippybangkok]

Some more people needs to be fired.

"Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft," the NTSB said.

On Friday, an anchor for Oakland, California, station KTVU read a list of the supposed names of the pilots of the South Korean carrier on its noon broadcast after an employee apparently called the NTSB seeking to verify them.

The names appear to mock the events of the crash. The prank names were: Captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk and Bang Ding Ow.

Common..... Where is your sense of humour. Hilarious, and they idot reporter who actually went with it

[skippybangkok]

Just did SFO on real 737 FBT flight simulator

1st visual approach , fully manual, clear day ( easy peasy - confused how 2 pros could crash last week ),

The rest was with fog down to 500 ft AGL. Not easy - quite hard for novice flying fully manual but managed. Last landing on localizer and on glide slope ( first fog landing had to go around )

[khaosai]

Just did SFO on real 737 FBT flight simulator 1st visual approach , fully manual, clear day ( easy peasy - confused how 2 pros could crash last week ), The rest was with fog down to 500 ft AGL. Not easy - quite hard for novice flying fully manual but managed. Last landing on localizer and on glide slope ( first fog landing had to go around )

Hi Skippy,

Where do you fly the simulator, Bangkok ?

[skippybangkok]

Hi Skippy,

Where do you fly the simulator, Bangkok ?

Flight Experience - Convent Road Silom rd - BKK.

737-800 FBT

First flight full fee, after that 50% discount. About 3400 baht per hour after discount

[Tywais]

Hi Skippy,

Where do you fly the simulator, Bangkok ?

Flight Experience - Convent Road Silom rd - BKK.

737-800 FBT

First flight full fee, after that 50% discount. About 3400 baht per hour after discount

I like it, just wished I could afford it. Flight Experience Wonder if I can put the time in my log book?

[skippybangkok]

I like it, just wished I could afford it. Flight Experience Wonder if I can put the time in my log book?

Birthday treat

Full rack rate I would not do, but 50% discount is ok. They give u 2 months on the discount rate..... = 1,700 per month ... Save save save !

I am ex Aero engineer, knew all the theory, but must admit my first flight ( was on autothrottle ) was a hand full, and I was mentally wasted after 90 mins

Now on fully manual and landing in fog, slowly getting there, but bloody tough. Can get it on the runway , but if for real, the whole cabin would be throwing up

[Tywais]

I am ex Aero engineer, knew all the theory, but must admit my first flight ( was on autothrottle ) was a hand full, and I was mentally wasted after 90 mins

I remember when I flew simulators. Remarkably exhausting to the point of weak knees and shaking a bit when stepping out of it.