Landing Incident @ SFO

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveCostello said:
Thanks for that info. So... if they thought that the A/T was managing speed, from a systems perspective, how could they have missed the fact that it wasn't, and that they were WELL below target? All of that seems to be pretty hard to ignore. Is there any chance they could have been (accidentally) hand flying this without A/T, despite thinking it was on, and if so, not get any warnings at all?
Click to expand...

That's the issue. There are enough warnings in place to let them know. If you turn off the autothrottle with the disconnects on the throttle, you have to push them a second time to cancel the caution. As for the airspeed, the autothrottles have a wake-up function if they are armed but not engaged. However, in some modes the function will not wake them. Regardless of A/T involvement, the airspeed low message would occur.

One final way of noticing if they are on is on the PFD. SOP for us is to call out any mode changes on the FMA. It is hard to know much unless we know what modes they were in and if they had an approach set up in the FMC. In my opinion if they didn't notice their airspeed getting that low they weren't looking inside anyway or if they were then they didn't interpret the data correctly. The question is why.
 
pullup said:
This is where you and I differ. I put on my big boy pants and read your responses, I actually agree with quite a bit of what you say. I hope you report your blood pressure medicine usage.
Click to expand...

Do you really think what you or Jim writes raises my blood pressure?
 
Center_Mid said:
Would the master caution just be a 'ding' noise or would there be an electronic voice saying "Airspeed" or "Stall Imminent" or something? From a human factors standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to have the latter? There are electronic voice warnings for glideslope deviations and such. If you're 20+ knots below Vref at or below 500' AGL you should probably get more than a ding and an EICAS message, both of which could potentially be ignored, misinterpreted, or deferred until it's too late.
Click to expand...

No voice warnings just a dinging that can only be cancelled by pressing the disconnect on the throttle again. The stick shaker occurs prior to the actual stall so that is the warning. By then they had no chance of getting out of it. There would have been no way to recover without losing more altitude. Maybe only a couple hundred feet but at that point for this crew they were out of options.
 
jtrain609 said:
This thread has been bringing the funny! 57 pages and nobody has bothered to look up the actual definition of negligence (hint: nobody has given the proper definition yet). This has been like watching a dog chase a car WHILE chasing its tail!
Click to expand...

Boris Badenov said:
Well, no one has given a proper legal definition, anyway. I believe someone did give a dictionary definition several pages ago.
Click to expand...
fourlights.jpg

There!Are!Four!Lights!
 
rjmore said:
No voice warnings just a dinging that can only be cancelled by pressing the disconnect on the throttle again. The stick shaker occurs prior to the actual stall so that is the warning. By then they had no chance of getting out of it. There would have been no way to recover without losing more altitude. Maybe only a couple hundred feet but at that point for this crew they were out of options.
Click to expand...


Do you guys get in the habit of clicking the silence button as rapidly as you hear a caution or master warning ding? I have noticed that in the GIV sim sessions I have done. The damn thing goes off so much, it desensitizes the crew.
 
scratching my head here. But how do you not drug/alcohol test a crew that killed and injured people? US crews so much as scratch the paint they are taking a wizz test. Seem like the regulators dropped the ball on that one.

I am also baffled by statements I heard today about there not being enough warnings. Seriously, we are pilots and should be able to fly the aircraft with or without the automation. With the airspeed that low, the picture out the window surely couldn't have looked right and once glance inside I am sure the pitch attitude was abnormal as well.

I am interested in how much Fatigue may have played an issue into this.
 
Bandit_Driver said:
scratching my head here. But how do you not drug/alcohol test a crew that killed and injured people? US crews so much as scratch the paint they are taking a wizz test. Seem like the regulators dropped the ball on that one.
Click to expand...


We will see a policy change with foreign carriers with regards to accidents on U.S. soil. It is insane how the FAA does not have the jurisdiction over foreign licensed pilots when they are here, that is like saying they don't have to follow any regulation or rule.
 
Hacker15e said:
Not surprised, I guess, but disappointed.

There are a lot of guys with a lot of great experience and perspectives that participate on this forum. That's all lost/wasted if they just sit entrenched in their corners and throw spears rather than actually engaging in discussion by explaining the "why" behind those comments. What's the point in having a position if you can't cogently explain why you have it?

Throwing up platitudes and having an assumption that your position is implicitly correct and not reproachable is no way to participate in a discussion forum. If we want to do that, we are better served standing in front of a mirror and watching ourselves talk and then agreeing with it.

But, stupid me for thinking the point behind JetCareers discussions outside the Lavatory was an actual exchange of information for the purposes of collectively and individually improving the aviation profession.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this post.

Don't know if it was causative or not, but lots of really good discussion further in this thread...
 
Hacker15e said:
Not surprised, I guess, but disappointed.

There are a lot of guys with a lot of great experience and perspectives that participate on this forum. That's all lost/wasted if they just sit entrenched in their corners and throw spears rather than actually engaging in discussion by explaining the "why" behind those comments. What's the point in having a position if you can't cogently explain why you have it?

Throwing up platitudes and having an assumption that your position is implicitly correct and not reproachable is no way to participate in a discussion forum. If we want to do that, we are better served standing in front of a mirror and watching ourselves talk and then agreeing with it.

But, stupid me for thinking the point behind JetCareers discussions outside the Lavatory was an actual exchange of information for the purposes of collectively and individually improving the aviation profession.
Click to expand...

Agree.

I think it's the nature of the internet.

I have a million perspectives on what could have happened but I do realize that it's very early in the investigation and often, the findings of the NTSB is generally a lot different than what I deduced.

Airplanes are hella complex. However, externally, all we can perceive is speed, climb, descent, turns in relation to terrain. It impacted a sea wall and was rendered unflyable after the structural damage. That's all we know. Now the chain of events which lead to this situation, seriously, no one really knows until the conclusion of the investigation.

I think we are all arguing ancillary factors however, some people realize that but unfortunatley others think we're actually "crowdsourcing" an investigation.

I have loads of ideas on what "could" have happened, but none of that means squat.
 
Derg said:
The NTSB needs to shut the hell up.

Period.

I've trained more Korean students than many folks paticipating in this thread combined probably, and my only statement is to wind the clock and be patient.

All we know, right now, is that he hit the ground too hard in a spot where he shouldn't have been. HOW and WHY he got there? Well, we'll find that out during a proper investigation.
Click to expand...

I too am quite shocked at the amount of information they're making public to the press. Having an investigation being done in public like it's some Kardashian show or some OJ trial, chips away and eventually destroys the integrity of the investigation and evidence at hand. I, fo one, don't know why they are doing this to the degree they are, as it goes against darn near everything Ive been brought up to believe in my career.
 
MikeD said:
I too am quite shocked at the amount of information they're making public to the press. Having an investigation being done in public like it's some Kardashian show or some OJ trial, chips away and eventually destroys the integrity of the investigation and evidence at hand. I, fo one, don't know why they are doing this to the degree they are, as it goes against darn near everything Ive been brought up to believe in my career.
Click to expand...


It certainly is new. I'd love to know what the motive is.

I don't think it necessarily corrupts the investigation, but it definitely gives the news networks even more information to misrepresent. Maybe it would be better if they quietly released this data, like on their website with no fanfare. Then industry professionals could take a gander without the press blowing it all out of proportion. :)
 
seagull said:
Another pertinent post that I can concur with, having done both http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/518568-asiana-flight-crash-san-francisco-76.html#post7933753
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the quoted post where a pilot states he/sh accepts speed assignments, then ignores them because he/she thinks they are stupid? An "unable" would suffice, but that pilot feels that ATC should always be by the book but he/she is exempt from that standard apparently.

We deal with long-haul aircraft everyday who request instrument approaches in lieu of the advertised visual, they get it. Doing exclusively instrument procedures may be safer for long-haul aircraft but strictly instrument procedures degrade the efficiency of the system. But accepting instructions, then willfully ignoring them degrades the safety of the system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top