Landing Incident @ SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know this is still far from a reliable source, but an NBC article had this quote from a passenger on the plane:

We were approaching perfectly well, but we were too low,” he said. “When the pilot realized it, he put some more gas to correct it, but it was too late, so we hit the runway pretty bad, and we started going up in the air again, and we landed pretty hard.
Click to expand...

It will be pretty bad if the official report for this accident says "the pilot missed".
 
thevideographer said:
I know this is still far from a reliable source, but an NBC article had this quote from a passenger on the plane:



It will be pretty bad if the official report for this accident says "the pilot missed".
Click to expand...


Wouldn't be the first person to fly a perfectly good airplane in to the ground. Say.... Eastern in the swamp.
 
SeanD said:
This guy knows all

quest.richard.jpg
Click to expand...

Yup, that's the idiot that now causes an instant shriek in my ears. :eek:

I've got a five spot that says he's got a JAA PPL .
 
thevideographer said:
I know this is still far from a reliable source, but an NBC article had this quote from a passenger on the plane:



It will be pretty bad if the official report for this accident says "the pilot missed".
Click to expand...

The aircraft was low before the numbers, and we already know that. It isn't a Cessna, so we have no idea why.
 
ndakcfi said:
CNN just mentioned terrorists, and informed us that fires are usually caused by things burning. Also, regional airliners aren't "full sized airplanes".

I swear we need a "stupid s*** said by news anchors" drinking game for things like this.
Click to expand...
No way dude, we'd all have alcohol poisoning in about 4 minutes.
 
thevideographer said:
I know this is still far from a reliable source, but an NBC article had this quote from a passenger on the plane:



It will be pretty bad if the official report for this accident says "the pilot missed".
Click to expand...


I heard an interview of a pax that said the opposite...."We were up very high and could see the tarmac...IT didnt look right and then we descended steeply and hit the end...."
 
JEP said:
I heard an interview of a pax that said the opposite...."We were up very high and could see the tarmac...IT didnt look right and then we descended steeply and hit the end...."
Click to expand...

And the passenger also stated, "I had my attorney on the phone while on our 6 mile final...."
 
Seggy said:
No. If you reread my posts, I made it clear that 'if true' these are the numbers.

However, someone on pprune supposedly over layed yesterday's flight aware data with today's. I'll post that as well...
Click to expand...

Yesterday's approach compared to today? You do realize this is the Golden Gate 6 arrival, which ends over the SFO VOR, with airplanes at 10k feet at that point? For 28L you get vectors for the left downwind, and depending on how long the final is, the descent rate is different for each approach. Some approaches are long and turn towards the Dumbarton bridges. Others are short, dive down and turn before the San Mateo bridge. The paths will be different. Now if this was an STAR with a transition straight to the runway (like the Modesto 4 arrival for the FMS Bridge Visual 28R) then you could look at previous tracks, because you have waypoints and altitudes published the whole way down. But when your STAR ends at the SFO VOR over the airport at 10,000 feet, all bets are off. Different days have different final lengths, and therefore different descent paths.
 
inigo88 said:
jtrain609 is absolutely right. I'm not sure how you thought this incident would somehow support your 1500 hour rule bashing, since the exact opposite is true. The fact is that ab initio training and cadet programs are the norm in Asia, and people with ~250-300 hours really ARE put in the right seat of heavy jets.

I really hope this incident creates a more public discussion about ab initio training, the practice of outsourcing their new hires to pilot mills in the U.S. (and why it's done), the "FO" contracts they have with freight companies like Ameriflight, and the cultural differences and age and experience hierarchies "nc" referred to that don't lend themselves to adequate CRM.

We should also be talking about the practice of hiring ex-pat westerners as captains (which many of you say "babysit" or "flight instruct" the foreign FOs). I've read this is on the decline in Asia, as countries become more nationalistic, view the ex-pats as taking their jobs, and promote more of their own FOs to Captains rather than hire the ex-pats. What happens if those new captains still aren't up to par, and they're now the ones responsible for leading and supervising the new ab initio FOs?

I think this is a pretty complex issue, but from the outside it sure looks like ab initio training in Asia is broken.

So if you'd like to rage about the 1500 hour rule and how it's preventing you from getting into the right seat of an RJ faster, today's incident is not very good supporting evidence. In fact, it may end up serving as a solemn reminder of why the U.S. should not go the ab initio route (despite how pleased the airlines would be to have their pilots bought into indentured servitude).

3qn8ad.jpg
Click to expand...

Because in those countries, there's really no general aviation. Singapore, UAE, Taiwan, and South Korea there isn't a general aviation where you can teach CFI, do pipeline/traffic work, and then start at an outsourced regional for 20 grand a year. Sorry, but that's only in the USA. That's why these airlines all rely heavily on expat pilots and ab initio program pilots.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yesterday's approach compared to today? You do realize this is the Golden Gate 6 arrival, which ends over the SFO VOR, with airplanes at 10k feet at that point? For 28L you get vectors for the left downwind, and depending on how long the final is, the descent rate is different for each approach. Some approaches are long and turn towards the Dumbarton bridges. Others are short, dive down and turn before the San Mateo bridge. The paths will be different. Now if this was an STAR with a transition straight to the runway (like the Modesto 4 arrival for the FMS Bridge Visual 28R) then you could look at previous tracks, because you have waypoints and altitudes published the whole way down. But when your STAR ends at the SFO VOR over the airport at 10,000 feet, all bets are off. Different days have different final lengths, and therefore different descent paths.
Click to expand...


That may be true...Serious question though....But at some point shouldnt each flight regardless of the method to get to final, be established on an identical glideslope path before touching down? I would 'think' that could provide some data to compare would it not?
 
JEP said:
That may be true...Serious question though....But at some point shouldnt each flight regardless of the method to get to final, be established on an identical glideslope path before touching down? I would 'think' that could provide some data to compare would it not?
Click to expand...

Stabilized 500, or more likely 1000 is typical. But flightaware data feeds aren't accurate looking at flights where I have been the one driving in the past, so I wouldn't put much faith into them
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Yesterday's approach compared to today? You do realize this is the Golden Gate 6 arrival, which ends over the SFO VOR, with airplanes at 10k feet at that point? For 28L you get vectors for the left downwind, and depending on how long the final is, the descent rate is different for each approach. Some approaches are long and turn towards the Dumbarton bridges. Others are short, dive down and turn before the San Mateo bridge. The paths will be different. Now if this was an STAR with a transition straight to the runway (like the Modesto 4 arrival for the FMS Bridge Visual 28R) then you could look at previous tracks, because you have waypoints and altitudes published the whole way down. But when your STAR ends at the SFO VOR over the airport at 10,000 feet, all bets are off. Different days have different final lengths, and therefore different descent paths.
Click to expand...


So you are saying a 1320 FPM rate of descent at 600 feet AGL (if the numbers are true) is a normal rate of descent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top