Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[MaxYakov]

Summary of final two NTSB briefings:

http://www.airsafenews.com/2013/07/summary-of-final-two-ntsb-briefings-on.html

this bit is interesting:

Cockpit automation and its role in the crash

As mentioned in a previous AirSafeNews.com article, use of the autothrottle by the crew to maintain speed was an issue because although the crew was heard on the CVR stating that the target speed was 137 knots, the aircraft was significantly slower than that speed before the crash. In Wednesday's press conference, the NTSB stated that there were five distinct autothrottle modes used in flight, and in the last 2.5 minutes of flight, there were several autothrottle and autopilot modes used.

As explained by the NTSB, the autopilot helps pilots manage pitch, roll, attitude, and heading; while the autothrottle helps to control speed or thrust. The two systems can work together, and the NTSB has to determine, with the help of Boeing, the following:

• Whether autopilot and autothrottle modes were commanded by the pilots or activated inadvertently,
• How the various autopilot and autothrottle modes are designed to work, and
• What are the ways the systems are expected to respond in the various modes.

=> maybe some of the 777 pilots here can comment on reasons why the autothrottle didn't maintain speed.

There is this from page 12 of this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-12#entry6600692

Also, buried somewhere in this thread, I believe there is an in-depth, overkill technical description of the auto-throttle subsystem that leaves one (me, anyway) wondering how it could ever work due to its complexity.

The Professional Pilot's (and others) Rumor Network has 122 pages of speculation: [link removed by author - oops]

Knock yourself out (reading all the speculation, I mean).

Edited August 4, 2013 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

737 today had nose gear collapse on landing. That will likely be a Boeing issue that they pay money on . . .

It looks like Southwest is actually going to take the heat: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/southwest-facing-first-lawsuit-over-nose-gear-collapse-92267.html

[JetsetBkk]

737 today had nose gear collapse on landing. That will likely be a Boeing issue that they pay money on . . .

It looks like Southwest is actually going to take the heat: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/southwest-facing-first-lawsuit-over-nose-gear-collapse-92267.html

I wonder what her permanent injuries are?:

She says in a lawsuit filed in Queens on Friday that she suffered permanent injuries after the accident. She's seeking unspecified compensation for her injuries.

A fear of flying, perhaps?

[harrry]

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?

You may be in luck...from the website.

nder this approval, pilots holding Instrument ratings can log instrument flight time and use these hours for recency. The approval also permits approved Aviation Training Organisations (AOC holders) to use our devices for instrument training and renewals. We are the only business of our type to receive approval for Pilot Training by an Aviation

[manarak]

Summary of final two NTSB briefings:

http://www.airsafenews.com/2013/07/summary-of-final-two-ntsb-briefings-on.html

this bit is interesting:

Cockpit automation and its role in the crash

As mentioned in a previous AirSafeNews.com article, use of the autothrottle by the crew to maintain speed was an issue because although the crew was heard on the CVR stating that the target speed was 137 knots, the aircraft was significantly slower than that speed before the crash. In Wednesday's press conference, the NTSB stated that there were five distinct autothrottle modes used in flight, and in the last 2.5 minutes of flight, there were several autothrottle and autopilot modes used.

As explained by the NTSB, the autopilot helps pilots manage pitch, roll, attitude, and heading; while the autothrottle helps to control speed or thrust. The two systems can work together, and the NTSB has to determine, with the help of Boeing, the following:

• Whether autopilot and autothrottle modes were commanded by the pilots or activated inadvertently,
• How the various autopilot and autothrottle modes are designed to work, and
• What are the ways the systems are expected to respond in the various modes.

=> maybe some of the 777 pilots here can comment on reasons why the autothrottle didn't maintain speed.

There is this from page 12 of this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-12#entry6600692

Also, buried somewhere in this thread, I believe there is an in-depth, overkill technical description of the auto-throttle subsystem that leaves one (me, anyway) wondering how it could ever work due to its complexity.

The Professional Pilot's (and others) Rumor Network has 122 pages of speculation: [link removed by author - oops]

Knock yourself out (reading all the speculation, I mean).

ah yes, very informative post by Khaosai - I overlooked it.

One of my questions - if these altimeters fail in the last approach phase and if it further causes a throttle retard, do the pilots reasonably have enough time to react?

[khaosai]

Summary of final two NTSB briefings:

http://www.airsafenews.com/2013/07/summary-of-final-two-ntsb-briefings-on.html

this bit is interesting:

Cockpit automation and its role in the crash

As mentioned in a previous AirSafeNews.com article, use of the autothrottle by the crew to maintain speed was an issue because although the crew was heard on the CVR stating that the target speed was 137 knots, the aircraft was significantly slower than that speed before the crash. In Wednesday's press conference, the NTSB stated that there were five distinct autothrottle modes used in flight, and in the last 2.5 minutes of flight, there were several autothrottle and autopilot modes used.

As explained by the NTSB, the autopilot helps pilots manage pitch, roll, attitude, and heading; while the autothrottle helps to control speed or thrust. The two systems can work together, and the NTSB has to determine, with the help of Boeing, the following:

• Whether autopilot and autothrottle modes were commanded by the pilots or activated inadvertently,
• How the various autopilot and autothrottle modes are designed to work, and
• What are the ways the systems are expected to respond in the various modes.

=> maybe some of the 777 pilots here can comment on reasons why the autothrottle didn't maintain speed.

There is this from page 12 of this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-12#entry6600692

Also, buried somewhere in this thread, I believe there is an in-depth, overkill technical description of the auto-throttle subsystem that leaves one (me, anyway) wondering how it could ever work due to its complexity.

The Professional Pilot's (and others) Rumor Network has 122 pages of speculation: [link removed by author - oops]

Knock yourself out (reading all the speculation, I mean).

ah yes, very informative post by Khaosai - I overlooked it.

One of my questions - if these altimeters fail in the last approach phase and if it further causes a throttle retard, do the pilots reasonably have enough time to react?

Hi,

I personally think you would have enough time to react.

[MaxYakov]

737 today had nose gear collapse on landing. That will likely be a Boeing issue that they pay money on . . .

It looks like Southwest is actually going to take the heat: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/southwest-facing-first-lawsuit-over-nose-gear-collapse-92267.html

I wonder what her permanent injuries are?:

She says in a lawsuit filed in Queens on Friday that she suffered permanent injuries after the accident. She's seeking unspecified compensation for her injuries.

A fear of flying, perhaps?

Or fear of another bad nose[in] job?

Edited August 4, 2013 by MaxYakov

[MaxYakov]

There is this from page 12 of this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-12#entry6600692

Also, buried somewhere in this thread, I believe there is an in-depth, overkill technical description of the auto-throttle subsystem that leaves one (me, anyway) wondering how it could ever work due to its complexity.

The Professional Pilot's (and others) Rumor Network has 122 pages of speculation: [link removed by author - oops]

Knock yourself out (reading all the speculation, I mean).

ah yes, very informative post by Khaosai - I overlooked it.

One of my questions - if these altimeters fail in the last approach phase and if it further causes a throttle retard, do the pilots reasonably have enough time to react?

Would the scenario be before they were below the runway elevation or after? Pardon the attempt at black humor, but the plane's reaction time is the critical factor - engine spool-up time, energy-inertia, wing lift (flap/spoiler configuration, angle-of-attack). Oh, I omitted luck. They were very lucky. If I were a survivor of that crash I would be really PO'd (as the survivors of the recent Spanish train derailment should be, IMHO).

Edited August 4, 2013 by MaxYakov

[manarak]

There is this from page 12 of this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-12#entry6600692

Also, buried somewhere in this thread, I believe there is an in-depth, overkill technical description of the auto-throttle subsystem that leaves one (me, anyway) wondering how it could ever work due to its complexity.

The Professional Pilot's (and others) Rumor Network has 122 pages of speculation: [link removed by author - oops]

Knock yourself out (reading all the speculation, I mean).

ah yes, very informative post by Khaosai - I overlooked it.

One of my questions - if these altimeters fail in the last approach phase and if it further causes a throttle retard, do the pilots reasonably have enough time to react?

Would the scenario be before they were below the runway elevation or after? Just kidding, but the plane's reaction time is the critical factor - engine spool-up time, energy-inertia, wing lift (flap/spoiler configuration, angle-of-attack). Oh, I omitted luck. They were very lucky. If I were a survivor of that crash I would be really PO'd.

main questions, details aside:

1- did the autothrottle behave as expected (i.e. the autothrottle didn't work because of pilot error)?

2- and once the pilots noticed the slow speed, was there enough material time to recover the situation or not?

If the answer to both questions is no, the responsibility isn't the pilots'

OTOH, reliance on a single system (autothrottle) to control speed of the aircraft in a critical moment is not a sound strategy.

Edited August 4, 2013 by manarak

[MaxYakov]

There is this from page 12 of this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-12#entry6600692

Also, buried somewhere in this thread, I believe there is an in-depth, overkill technical description of the auto-throttle subsystem that leaves one (me, anyway) wondering how it could ever work due to its complexity.

The Professional Pilot's (and others) Rumor Network has 122 pages of speculation: [link removed by author - oops]

Knock yourself out (reading all the speculation, I mean).

ah yes, very informative post by Khaosai - I overlooked it.

One of my questions - if these altimeters fail in the last approach phase and if it further causes a throttle retard, do the pilots reasonably have enough time to react?

Would the scenario be before they were below the runway elevation or after? Just kidding, but the plane's reaction time is the critical factor - engine spool-up time, energy-inertia, wing lift (flap/spoiler configuration, angle-of-attack). Oh, I omitted luck. They were very lucky. If I were a survivor of that crash I would be really PO'd.

main questions, details aside:

1- did the autothrottle behave as expected (i.e. the autothrottle didn't work because of pilot error)?

2- and once the pilots noticed the slow speed, was there enough material time to recover the situation or not?

If the answer to both questions is no, the responsibility isn't the pilots'

OTOH, reliance on a single system (autothrottle) to control speed of the aircraft in a critical moment is not a sound strategy.

For your main questions I recommend the forthcoming NTSB final report. I have this hypothesis that the pilot's last seconds action to increase the aircraft's pitch to climb may have resulted in the tail-strike on the seawall. Total speculation on my part, but I'd love to know their actual altitude when they realized they were too low and slow. Maybe the NTSB will speculate about what could have been done to avoid the seawall in the last seconds in their report (other than to fly a stabilized approach to avoid the situation).

As to your opinion on aircraft control and in particular as it relates to this incident, perhaps you should watch this [over] reliance-on-automation training lecture by a professional pilot:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-15#entry6622025

I apologize for the details in it (don't know why), but I, and many others, found it to be informative as well as entertaining.

PS (your original question): The crew of the AF 447 incident had just about four minutes to correct their aircraft's stall and did not. Even as high as 10,000 feet with its rapid descent they may not have been able to save the aircraft even if they had accurately deduced what it was doing and acted immediately and correctly.

Edited August 4, 2013 by MaxYakov

[F430murci]

737 today had nose gear collapse on landing. That will likely be a Boeing issue that they pay money on . . .

It looks like Southwest is actually going to take the heat: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/southwest-facing-first-lawsuit-over-nose-gear-collapse-92267.html

Yep, I thought I heard the day that it happened that flight crew had notified tower of a possible problem with landing gear before the landing. Appears that preliminary news report was wrong based on this article.

[MaxYakov]

737 today had nose gear collapse on landing. That will likely be a Boeing issue that they pay money on . . .

It looks like Southwest is actually going to take the heat: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/southwest-facing-first-lawsuit-over-nose-gear-collapse-92267.html

Yep, I thought I heard the day that it happened that flight crew had notified tower of a possible problem with landing gear before the landing. Appears that preliminary news report was wrong based on this article.

Or the crew was incredibly prognostic or had just called the psychic hotline.

[manarak]

For your main questions I recommend the forthcoming NTSB final report. I have this hypothesis that the pilot's last seconds action to increase the aircraft's pitch to climb may have resulted in the tail-strike on the seawall. Total speculation on my part, but I'd love to know their actual altitude when they realized they were too low and slow. Maybe the NTSB will speculate about what could have been done to avoid the seawall in the last seconds in their report (other than to fly a stabilized approach to avoid the situation).

As to your opinion on aircraft control and in particular as it relates to this incident, perhaps you should watch this [over] reliance-on-automation training lecture by a professional pilot:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-15#entry6622025

I apologize for the details in it (don't know why), but I, and many others, found it to be informative as well as entertaining.

PS (your original question): The crew of the AF 447 incident had just about four minutes to correct their aircraft's stall and did not. Even as high as 10,000 feet with its rapid descent they may not have been able to save the aircraft even if they had accurately deduced what it was doing and acted immediately and correctly.

great video.

[khaosai]

For your main questions I recommend the forthcoming NTSB final report. I have this hypothesis that the pilot's last seconds action to increase the aircraft's pitch to climb may have resulted in the tail-strike on the seawall. Total speculation on my part, but I'd love to know their actual altitude when they realized they were too low and slow. Maybe the NTSB will speculate about what could have been done to avoid the seawall in the last seconds in their report (other than to fly a stabilized approach to avoid the situation).

As to your opinion on aircraft control and in particular as it relates to this incident, perhaps you should watch this [over] reliance-on-automation training lecture by a professional pilot:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651859-boeing-777-plane-crash-lands-at-san-francisco-airport/page-15#entry6622025

I apologize for the details in it (don't know why), but I, and many others, found it to be informative as well as entertaining.

PS (your original question): The crew of the AF 447 incident had just about four minutes to correct their aircraft's stall and did not. Even as high as 10,000 feet with its rapid descent they may not have been able to save the aircraft even if they had accurately deduced what it was doing and acted immediately and correctly.

great video.

Hi,

That is a great video with great delivery highlighting the potential threats with automated aircraft. There are some great pointers that will remain valid for a long time to come. The statement, fly the aircraft needs to be the pilots primary task.

Thing have moved on in the industry with regards to the level of automation and the improvement in the aircraft systems. The B777 is a good example where the auto throttle use is recommended even when in manual flight, however may be disconnected to maintain proficiency. The Airbus 380 traffic collision avoidance manoeuvre is now fully automated and flown by the autopilot and auto throttle.

Auto flight systems can reduce workload and increase safety but it's important for the pilot to decide on what level of automation to use to achieve those goals. If the level of automation is not performing as expected then the pilot should reduce the automation to ensure proper control. Quite often it's lack of understanding of the system that causes the problems. The systems that are designed are excellent but need to be fully understood.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Scott

[cloudhopper]

I have this hypothesis that the pilot's last seconds action to increase the aircraft's pitch to climb may have resulted in the tail-strike on the seawall.

Quite possible - at a certain point around the stall many airfoils will develop such massive induced drag with further increases in AOA resulting in "reverse command" and increasing, rather than decreasing the sink rate.

[Mosha]

Airliners.net is reporting that the pilots are now working as ground crew.

[Lancashirelad]

Airliners.net is reporting that the pilots are now working as ground crew.

Dead right too. Can't be having numpties flying hundreds of members of the public around making such basic mistakes.

[Chicog]

Airliners.net is reporting that the pilots are now working as ground crew.

Dead right too. Can't be having numpties flying hundreds of members of the public around making such basic mistakes.

As long as they're not flight crew trainers!

[Scott]

Here is an update on the situation:

http://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-asiana-captain-worried-visual-landing-134314136.html

[manarak]

Seems pilot error / airline management error is a clear cause for the crash, in conjunction with the shut down systems at SFO.

Boeing's auto-throttle though, seems to also have contributed to the crash. Their retired chief pilot sounds very defensive:

Boeing's retired 777 chief pilot John Cashman said the system and flight manuals had been evaluated and approved.

Cashman underscored that auto controls are not designed to replace pilots.

"The pilot is the final authority for the operation of the airplane," he said.

[Chicog]

It would seem at least one of them was an Airbus veteran, so maybe a bit of confusion about how the aircraft actually worked?

[lomatopo]

Asiana Airlines pilot was ‘nervous’ about landing before deadly San Francisco crash caught on camera

The pilot at the helm of the Boeing 777 was 'very concerned' about the landing and had less than 45 hours in the jet, according to a newly released accident summary reviewed by the National Transportation Security Board on Wednesday. New video further shows the airline tumbling onto the San Francisco runaway in a horrific crash that killed three.

The pilot of the Boeing 777 further told investigators he was "very concerned" about attempting a visual approach without the runway's instrument landing aids, which were out of service because of construction.

Lee Kang Kuk, a 46-year-old pilot who was landing the big jet for his first time at San Francisco, "stated it was very difficult to perform a visual approach with a heavy airplane."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/asiana-airlines-pilot-nervous-deadly-crash-san-francisco-article-1.1544318

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2013/12/13/ntsb-releases-chilling-new-videos-of-asiana-airlines-s-f-plane-crash/

NTSB hearing on Asiana crash at SFO postponed

SAN FRANCISCO -- A hearing before the National Transportation Safety Board on the crash of an Asiana Airlines flight at San Francisco International Airport last July that was set to begin today, has been postponed due to a snowstorm that has closed the federal government offices in the Washington D.C. area today.

Holloway said the board's final report, which will include a statement on the probable cause of the accident and recommendations for actions to address the problems found, may be completed by the summer of 2014.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/peninsula&id=9355254

Edited December 14, 2013 by lomatopo

[skippybangkok]

If a pilot is worried about a visual approach using PAPI in good weather with an experienced trainer on board too, he better hang up his boots and call it a day.

[hawker9000]

If a pilot is worried about a visual approach using PAPI in good weather with an experienced trainer on board too, he better hang up his boots and call it a day.

'Kind o' sounds defensive, like he's just trying to offload some of the blame & responsibility onto SFO.

[taqila]

Why old news about this?

[taqila]

We know this was July 5 mo ago?

[Lancashirelad]

We know this was July 5 mo ago?

Well some of us are interested in the outcome of the investigation and subsequent follow ups. If you're not, unsubscribe from the topic and don't read it. Simples

[skippybangkok]

I second that

[taqila]

Good idea! Thanks

[Chicog]

SF firefighter who ran over Asiana Airline victim alleges she was made a 'scapegoat'

By Dan Nakaso

SAN FRANCISCO -- A veteran San Francisco firefighter who was blamed for running over a teenage passenger who was thrown from the wreckage of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is suing her department, alleging she was made a scapegoat for larger failures in responding to the July 6 crash at San Francisco International Airport.

Elyse Duckett, a 24-year veteran firefighter who is still with the department and is the longest-serving firefighter at SFO, alleged in a lawsuit Friday that onboard video shows that a 120,000-pound, San Francisco Fire Department Aircraft Rescue Firefighting rig twice ran over 16-year-old Ye Meng Yuan before Duckett's rig ran over the girl. Yet only Duckett's name, home address and phone number were released to the media by unknown department officials.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_25731343/sf-firefighter-who-ran-over-asiana-airline-victim